Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Duty-free Sales

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]

Mr. Bill O'Brien: It is a privilege to address the House on the future of duty free, which is a thriving and successful business which started in Europe 50 years ago and generates about 60 billion ecu within the European Union. The abolition of the trade would have a significant impact on the economy of the United Kingdom and on activity in many sectors, especially jobs. Keeping duty free would generate wealth which would help to achieve desirable outcomes within EU policy objectives.
A few people in the EU decided in 1991 that selling duty-free goods to people travelling within its territory was incompatible with its internal market and that sales should stop in June 1999. Many hon. Members, Members of the European Parliament and I are convinced that the decision to abolish the trade was based on a false premise. The European Commission claimed, and member states accepted, that the internal market would rapidly reach such a level of integration that duty free would be an unacceptable aberration; June 1999 was therefore nominated as the date for abolition.
Experience has shown, however, that the internal market has not developed on the lines predicted or reached the desirable level of integration, so we request that Ministers call for an impact assessment of the abolition of duty free and that no action should be taken on the current system until the report on the impact of abolition has been presented to Parliament.
I make that plea because of information received not only from the industry on the loss of jobs should duty free be abolished, but from our constituents and from our local regional airports. I can best refer to the situation facing Leeds-Bradford airport, which serves the Yorkshire and Humberside region. A note from the director informs me that the Leeds-Bradford airport committee forecasts a throughput of about 1.4 million passengers for 1998. Two thirds of the traffic is scheduled and one third is charter, and the overwhelming majority of international traffic is to the European Union.
The airport company has been profitable since its formation in 1987. In 1996–97, it recorded a pre-tax profit of £1.3 million, a high proportion of which can be attributed to revenues raised by duty-free sales. The Transport Select Committee took evidence from regional airport operators, and we were told that about 40 per cent. of the airport's income came from duty-free sales.
I am advised that, if duty free is abolished, airports will have to increase charges in addition to the taxes that have been levied recently. Furthermore, the independent consultants Symmonds Travers Morgan have recently estimated that the abolition of duty free at the Leeds-Bradford airport could mean the loss of 70 jobs. That was calculated by forecasting the number of on-airport retail jobs in 2005 with and without duty free. The difference between those two figures was grossed up to take account of jobs arising indirectly from the economic activity in the airport. The airport is a successful business which generates employment and, if duty free is abolished, people will lose their jobs and have to go on benefit.
Passengers through Leeds-Bradford airport, many of whom are my constituents, benefit in three ways: they enjoy using the duty-free shop; they are now enjoying the extended departure lounge, the new air-bridge and the upgraded check-in concourse, which duty-free revenues have helped to facilitate; and they benefit from the fact that airport charges have not increased since 1995 because resources from duty-free sales have enabled airlines to avoid passing on any increases in charges.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What my hon. Friend has said is very interesting, but who would not shout foul if they were to lose a state subsidy that they had enjoyed? It is unbelievable and indefensible that anyone should argue that some limited businesses should continue to receive this state subsidy. It is time that people who do not travel stopped having to pay for the boondoggles and beanos of those who do.

Mr. O'Brien: That is far from the real issue. No one loses out under the present system of duty free, but a substantial number of my hon. Friend's constituents could lose out if duty free were abolished. If my hon. Friend took a poll of people in his constituency, he would discover that a substantial number would argue for the retention of duty free because of the impact of the loss of revenue from duty-free sales on charges and services.
This morning, I received a letter from a constituent, Mrs. C. Eason from Stanley. She writes:
Dear Mr. O'Brien,
I am writing to voice my concern regarding the planned abolition of duty free shopping in July 1999.
Duty Free shopping is part of the fun of going on holiday, everyone likes to think that they are 'getting a bargain', notwithstanding the fact that if the shops shut down what will happen to all the staff? Another set of hard working people put out of work and for what?
The general public will again lose out as it will cost extra to travel and maybe even longer journeys as I am led to believe that a loss of duty-free shopping will mean some routes closing completely.
I hope that my views will be noted as I feel strongly that duty-free shopping should not come to an end.
Yours faithfully,
Mrs C Eason".
I am sure that the view of my constituent is reflected in many areas, particularly by constituents of hon. Members present.

Mr. Roy Beggs: That correspondence is similar to other letters that most of us have received. Has the hon. Gentleman received any request from a


constituent for duty free to be abolished? Does he agree that hundreds of thousands of employees are distressed by the prospect of duty free being abolished within the European Union? Where are those people to be employed?

Mr. O'Brien: I have not received any correspondence or pressure, except from Government sources, for the abolition of duty free. The majority of requests that I receive are for me to fight to retain duty free—hence this morning's debate.
I shall wind up my speech, as many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Will the Financial Secretary tell us what rules will be put in its place if duty free is abolished? I reiterate the call for an impact assessment of the abolition of duty free. I understand that there is no argument in the Treasury about that, so our Ministers should present the case for such an assessment. I ask the Financial Secretary to consider my points carefully and to agree to request an impact assessment. I will accept the result of that assessment whether it is to abolish or to retain duty free.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall have to leave to attend another meeting. I fully support his call for an impact assessment, although the Government seem reluctant to consider that issue. Does he accept that in the single European market it is important to ensure that beverages are taxed at the same level according to alcohol content? A campaign has been run by the Scotch Whisky Association and other organisations to ensure that there is a level playing field throughout the European Union.

Mr. O'Brien: I hope that, if we cannot have the same level of charges throughout the European Union, we can at least narrow the gap, because the tax in some countries is 10 times higher than in others. I would find it acceptable to have a fairer application of charges. The impact assessment would help to provide information that could be used to determine that principle.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will give serious consideration to my points and that assistance will be given to help us to understand why duty free is being abolished and what social and economic consequences that could have on some of our regions.

Mr. David Wilshire: I remind the House of four points. First, this debate is not about the cross-channel trade, which is duty paid. I mention that because, when I have sought to persuade some of my colleagues that keeping duty free is a good idea, they have referred to the harm done by the duty-paid trade coming across the channel. I stress that that trade will continue whatever happens to the duty-free trade.
Secondly, in case Labour Members are tempted to say that it is all very well for a Tory to argue against abolition, the records show that I opposed the Conservative Government when they supported this decision in the first place. I am not trying to make party political points.
Thirdly, the northern boundary of my constituency is the southern boundary fence of Heathrow airport. My fourth point flows from that. Some people have suspicious

minds, so, for those who have not read the Register of Members' Interests recently, I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no financial interest and no financial links with British Airways, BAA or the tobacco and drinks lobbies. I do, however, have close links with large numbers of their employees—my constituents. My constituents, my local businesses and the whole economy of my constituency depend on the continued prosperity of Heathrow airport. In view of the strictures of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) against those of us who speak up for duty free, let me make it clear that, if speaking up for my constituents is a crime, I plead guilty, and I make no apology for it.
There is a powerful case for keeping duty free. My main justification, trivial as it may sound, has always been that it is a harmless bit of fun in an otherwise dull world that gets duller by the week.

Mr. Mackinlay: It is a subsidy.

Mr. Wilshire: I shall deal with the subsidy argument later.
It is a harmless bit of fun which we all enjoy, so why not keep it? There must be, and there are, other justifications that are just as powerful. First, I am convinced that duty free keeps ticket prices down. Anyone who does not believe that should consider why Heathrow airport has been given permission to raise landing charges by 7.5 per cent. in anticipation of loss of revenue.
Figures tell us that, if we lose duty free, £10 will be added to the price of a one-way ticket to anywhere in the European Union. At present, most of us probably spend £10 on duty free, but, under the current regime, we have a bottle of something to remind us of the pleasure. In future, we will simply part with £10, and have nothing to show for it. Duty free keeps prices down.
Secondly, the profits made at Heathrow—I make no attempt to speak for anywhere else—have been used to fund capital investment. The Heathrow express rail service has had £440 million spent on it, and it owes a lot to duty free. The improved terminal 2 has had £54 million spent on it, and it, too, owes a lot to duty free. Baggage handling, now that it works, is a plus for the airport, and £250 million has been spent on it.
Let me pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock about terminal 5. It is important that that terminal should be built at Heathrow. My constituents want it and, provided we get the environmental safeguards, duty-free profits will be needed to make it a going concern. At the last general election, when I said these things, neither my Labour nor my Liberal Democrat opponent criticised me; they, too, understood the importance of terminal 5 to my constituency.
It is vital that duty free should help to keep Heathrow as Europe's No. 1 hub. If it does not remain No. 1, my constituents and local businesses will suffer. The argument touches on the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) about jobs. Inside the boundary fence at Heathrow, there are 55,000 jobs, and I represent many of those people. It is reasonable to estimate that, if duty free goes, about 1,200 of those jobs will be at risk. I do not know how to calculate the knock-on effect on associated jobs outside the airport.
I am realistic. I am aware that there is a case against duty free, but I find that case spurious. There are those who argue that duty free is not appropriate within the


European Union. Why ever not? Duty-free sales between sovereign, independent nations are well established. The nations of the EU are sovereign and independent, and anyone who argues that we should not have duty free within the EU is admitting that he wants a single country. I do not, and duty free helps to show that we are not one and the same place.
The second argument that I hear against duty free is that it is a silly anomaly, which no longer makes sense—it cannot be had on Eurostar, and one cannot do this or that. Perhaps it is an anomaly, but what is wrong with anomalies? Let me set out an alternative anomaly. Duty free is abolished, and you, Madam Speaker, decide to fly from Heathrow to Lisbon. British Airways will be anxious to continue to sell you something. You will have to decide, before leaving Heathrow, whether to buy from British Airways at British tax rates, or to wait until you are flying over France, when you can buy at French rates. Alternatively, if you are very lucky, the aircraft may fly for 30 seconds over Andorra, where you can buy duty-free goods. Would it be better to wait until Spain? Failing that, you may decide to buy just before you land in Lisbon, if the Portuguese rate is more attractive. To say that duty free is an anomaly may be correct, but there are other equally stupid examples of what will happen if we no longer have duty free.
A convincing argument for some people—the hon. Member for Thurrock rather likes it—is that duty free represents a loss of revenue to the Treasury. As the hon. Gentleman so prosaically put it, it is a subsidy. He is wrong; duty free is no such thing. Duty-free sales are based on what can best be described as a human weakness, from which I suffer more than most. I cannot resist a bargain. Hon. Members should do what I do. They should go to Heathrow, and talk to the people who run duty-free outlets. They should talk to my constituents who work in those outlets: they will tell amazing stories of what people will buy because it is cheap. I do not for one minute believe that, if we abolish duty free, all that purchasing will shift to duty-paid goods. If it does not, my constituents will lose their jobs, and manufacturers will have to lay people off because their sales will go down.

Fiona Mactaggart: I, too, have a number of constituents who work at Heathrow. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Heathrow estimates that only about 50 per cent. of air-side sales are of duty-free goods? The duty-free taster gets us to buy other goods on which tax is paid. The Treasury receives a lot of revenue from those sales, which would not be earned if the duty-free taster did not persuade people to shop at Heathrow.

Mr. Wilshire: I agree. I am conscious of the fact that, if I say too much, I shall take the hon. Lady's speech from her. She will advance the same arguments from the west of the airport that I advance from the south. If she will forgive me, I shall not go down that track, but she is absolutely right.
I realise that I need to be constructive. There are good arguments for and against. However, it behoves those of us who speak up to make a practical suggestion about what should be done. I would settle for another postponement. The real impetus behind the argument for abolition of duty free is the assumption that prices will be the same throughout the EU. Indeed, my reason for saying

that duty-paid sales across the channel are not relevant is that the power of different duties is driving massive vanloads of bootleg liquor into this country to be sold heaven knows where.
I would settle for a postponement until duties are the same throughout the European Union, and I urge the Financial Secretary to work towards that goal. I believe that she would be pushing at an open door. It may sound strange for a Tory to say this, but if she wants to improve her Government's poll ratings—perhaps she does not feel that that is necessary—keeping duty free would be a splendid way to do it. Like the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I have had a large number of letters saying, "Keep it," and not one representation from a constituent who wants to see it go.
Let us have a postponement. I would feel comfortable with that, because I believe that the day of harmonised duty is a long way off. Indeed, it is so far off that pigs may fly before we see that happy day. On the day that we see jumbo porkers land on the runways of Heathrow instead of jumbo jets, my constituents will know that duty free is finished.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be raising their concerns about the negative impact that the abolition of duty-free and tax-free sales will have on their constituents and on travel industries in their constituencies. For my part, I was concerned about the effects of the abolition of duty free on cross-channel ferries in my Dover constituency long before I became a Member of the House. My first fears were alerted more than 10 years ago when I was sailing on cross-channel ferries in Dover and representing seafaring colleagues in NUMAST—the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, the Merchant Navy officers' union—and thousands of other people in Dover, Deal and east Kent, who opposed the Channel Tunnel Bill in this House and in the other place.
We opposed the Bill because of the unfair advantage that it gave to the tunnel, because of the huge impact that it would have on our successful ferry services and because thousands of jobs would be lost in our port-related industries. It was during the Bill's passage that we first heard of the European Commission's decision to abolish duty-free sales. We knew that abolition would cause more redundancies in Dover and east Kent than the channel tunnel, as a direct result of which 2,000 jobs would be lost.
The 1987 Conservative Government rejected all our forecasts of job losses, of viability and of building time. Of course, we know now that all their predictions have been proved wholly wrong, but they did at least conduct an impact study on the tunnel's effects on Kent before allowing it to proceed. Support for an impact study on the effects of the abolition of duty free is all that we ask of the Financial Secretary this morning.
Of course, we already have a fair idea of the impact from numerous independent studies. All the results have been hugely negative. Take the most recent study from the Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd. Figures show that, in the whole of Europe, up to 130,000 jobs will be lost in the first two years after abolition, that, in the whole of the UK, up to 23,000 jobs will be lost by 2005 and that, in the whole of Kent, 5,000 jobs will be lost.


That report shows that the biggest burden will fall on Kent and that the biggest proportion of job losses will take place in my Dover constituency, which houses the busiest ferry port in the world, but still has areas of deep deprivation and high unemployment. However, Dover is fighting back. We have assisted area status, which we must retain, and important investment plans, and we are building our second cruise terminal, which will be the premier cruising port of Europe. Having lost thousands of jobs with the closure of the east Kent coalfield, the introduction of the single market and the opening of the channel tunnel, my constituents deserve better than to be penalised again by a decision that none of the member states seems enthusiastic about, that no member of the public wants to support and that has never been tested by an impact study.
As well as the social and economic impact that has already been identified in our studies, the impact of abolition on smuggling has to be considered. I know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is aware of the bootlegging problem that my constituency faces, despite the excellent work by Customs and Excise officers, albeit under difficult circumstances.
It is important, and this was brought up earlier in the debate, that we differentiate between legitimate "on board" duty-free goods, which are carefully controlled and strictly limited, and shore-based duty-paid goods that are bought in France or elsewhere in the European Union, the sale of which is not controlled and all the limits on which are widely drawn. I have always taken the view that the availability of duty free has acted as a safety valve, relieving the pressure and temptation on most travellers to overload with duty-paid goods. On that basis, abolition will serve only to increase bootlegging and the loss to the Exchequer.
Duty free provides a simple, well-tested regime that everyone understands and is easy to administer. Zero tax plus zero duty equals zero. The industry wants to know what will replace duty free on the ferries sailing, for example, from Dover to Calais. Will goods be charged at UK rates, French rates or something in between? What about the ferries and aircraft that pass over three, four or even more different tax areas? What tax regime will be applied to them? When will it be applied and who will enforce it?
Those questions have been asked over a long period with no answers. It is little wonder that, with just 13 months to go, the industry believes that only chaos will reign if duty free is indeed abolished in June next year. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will have some answers for us this morning.
The industries and the jobs that they support are being damaged because they cannot draw up business plans, plan prices and forecast employment numbers and, of course, as has been said by all hon. Members who have spoken so far, duty free is tremendously popular. For some people, it is even more popular than motherhood and apple pie. The people would win any referendum on continuance hands down.
Continuance of duty free has scored about 75 per cent. in some opinion polls, which makes it even more popular than our Prime Minister. I am convinced that the people of these islands want both to continue for as long as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. An Adjournment debate is a Back Benchers' debate and hon. Members should follow the example of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and be brief.

Mr. David Chidgey: Your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have penetrated my head very clearly and I shall do my best to summarise my points.
There are four important points to consider and it is interesting that hon. Members on both sides of the House are showing genuine concern about this issue. What is the purpose of banning duty-free sales? As I understand it, it is part of a grand design for the single market, which was set down in the 1980s, the aims of which are perfectly laudable from where I stand. What would be the benefits? The benefits, we believe, would be the equalisation of taxes and duties across the borders of the independent states of the European Union and freedom of trade without barriers, which, again, is a laudable aim. There is the added advantage, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has continually reminded us, of increased taxes to the Exchequer—perhaps.
What would be the disbenefits? Already this morning, hon. Members have talked of their concerns for their regional and local economies, the threat to transport links and the effect on bootlegging of duty-paid sales, which is a far more serious problem than people have said. What would be the reasonable gains from banning duty-free sales to the economic stability of the European Economic Community, to the social and economic goals of the EU and to our citizens?
It was the view in the 1980s that a single market would rapidly reach such a level of integration that duty and tax-free goods would become an unacceptable anachronism and something of the past. The view was that, within a single market, indirect taxes would all obey the same rules and same tax rates, and that the same exemptions would apply throughout the EU. There would be steady progress towards fixed harmonisation throughout the EU.
Those aims are laudable. My party and I are happy to support them and have long supported them, but the reality is that little progress has been made in the past 20 years. There is no immediate prospect of uniform indirect tax systems or rates. In that context—we must consider this—banning duty-free sales in isolation has that great danger of putting the cart before the horse.
I am greatly in favour of removing any distortions that exist in competition because of duty free, distortions between different modes of transport—sea, air, road and rail—and distortions between duty-free and duty-paid goods that are on sale in our retail outlets. Abolishing duty free could strengthen the policy of freedom of trade throughout the European Union, removing the barriers that we have been trying to remove for so long. It could bring extra revenue to the Exchequer and remove the subsidy about which the hon. Member for Thurrock


chirrups in a sparrowlike fashion from a sedentary position. However, the reality is that we do not know how much. We could equally lose money to the Exchequer through loss of capital gains tax and national insurance contributions, and indeed through the cost of unemployment.
What would be the disbenefits of banning duty-free sales? There is genuine cross-party concern about the impact on our regional and local economies. Yes, we have seen the figures that have been thrown out by several studies, admittedly supported by people who have an interest in this: I accept that. However, the studies are there, and the figures show that perhaps 140,000 jobs will be affected. The business currently provides that number of jobs.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chidgey: I will continue, if I may. Although we have enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's sedentary interventions in this debate, I will continue with my speech.
Some estimates show that 20,000 jobs are directly at risk. I do not pretend to know whether those figures are valid, but the concern exists. There is therefore a need to examine the matter in detail.
I should like to speak briefly on behalf of my own constituency. In Eastleigh, we have the headquarters of one of the best-known distributors of duty-free goods— [Interruption.] I accept that I am speaking on behalf of my constituency—as I think every hon. Member should do. Several hundred jobs are at risk in that firm.
Manchester airport is one of the few municipal airports in the United Kingdom to plough its profits back into investing in its infrastructure. I am told by employees there that there is one extra cabin crew member on every charter flight leaving Manchester airport to sell duty-free goods. Those jobs would go if such sales were abolished. Therefore, those at Manchester airport, too, have genuine concerns.
There is genuine concern also about the viability of many of the cross-channel ferry routes, and of ferries across Europe, if duty-free sales are banned. We must consider the possible impacts of ending the sales. In Hampshire, the Portsmouth and Southampton ferry ports have invested very heavily over the years in the operation of cross-channel ferry services.
I will not deal with the matter of bootlegging sales—as it has already been covered quite adequately in the debate—or with the anomalies that will arise because of the different duty rates applying on the continent of Europe and in the United Kingdom. Those anomalies are the real problem. We have made no progress in harmonising duty levels among the European Union member states—although we surely must try to do so.
I ask the Financial Secretary to realise that, although we may have set off with great ideas of harmonising tax and duty across the European Union, the harmonisation process has stalled. Although the European Parliament has brought that fact to the attention of the European Commission—which, in 1991, made promises to undertake an impact study of the effect on the regions of banning duty-free sales—many people across Europe are concerned that, when push came to shove, the Commission reneged on its promise, despite the fact that,

time and again, the matter was brought back to the Commission's attention by Members of the European Parliament.
When the matter was brought to the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, she said that she understood the point on jobs made by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and that
The Government's position, therefore, continues to be to support the demands for a review of the impact of the duty-free regime ending in June 1999." —[Official Report, 15 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 480.]
That was a very sensible approach for the Financial Secretary to take, and I hope that she will today confirm it to the House.
Time is running out. There is growing acceptance in member states of the need for a review of the policy. I urge the Government to add their weight, while they hold the presidency of the European Union, to calls for a detailed study of the effects of abolition in advance of harmonisation of general taxes and duties, and for concrete proposals to deal with the disbenefits that regions may suffer from abolishing duty-free sales, which will severely affect local economies. Such action would be in the interests of the United Kingdom. It must be in the interests of the European Union, and also of common sense.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: I support an assessment of the impact that abolition of duty-free sales may have on constituencies and regions such as mine. My constituency contains Harwich international port, which operates ferries to and from Hamburg in Germany, Holland, Denmark and Sweden. Last year, 1.8 million passengers passed through our port. The average passenger spend on duty free was estimated at £20 per head, for a total of £36 million. Those figures show the impact of duty-free sales on the port's finances.
Duty-free sales do not benefit only shipping companies and airlines. In my constituency, local shops, regional tourism, restaurants, hotels, and bed-and-breakfast facilities all benefit from passengers who use the port and make duty-free purchases. If ferry ticket prices were to increase because of abolition, that would surely have an impact on the economy of both Harwich and the region.
In recent years, my area has suffered unemployment levels of more than 9 per cent., and things are only now starting to improve a bit. Although the Government's new deal is helping employment levels in my area, we cannot afford to allow anything to jeopardise that growth.
Ferries in Harwich carry freight, too. If that freight stops coming to Harwich, dockers' jobs will be affected. If shipping in Harwich is curtailed, seafaring jobs—which have been badly affected over the years—will be adversely affected. We finally have a Government who are examining ways of helping the shipping industry to grow—preserving a part of my constituency's, and our country's, proud heritage.
Let us make no mistake about the effects of abolishing duty-free sales. The evidence shows that, in my constituency, the first jobs that will go are British shipping jobs. My constituency once had hundreds, perhaps thousands, of seafaring jobs; we are now down to 58 such jobs. I do not want those remaining jobs to disappear, simply because an assessment was not made of the impact of abolishing duty-free sales.


Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have received many letters not only from constituents but from employees working for ferry companies, dock companies and other parts of the industry that might be affected by abolishing duty-free sales. Those people tell me that they are concerned about keeping their jobs. I have not received one letter from someone at a local shop or supermarket saying that we should do away with duty-free sales or that they would benefit from abolition. Local business people realise the benefits that they receive from duty-free sales on ships and from passengers passing through our ports. Passengers visit our shops and stay in our hotels and bed and breakfasts, creating security for those working in those industries.
I urge the Government to support an assessment of the impact of abolishing duty-free sales, not only on United Kingdom employment but on European employment. I am certain that my constituency will be affected if duty-free sales are abolished, and that we will consequently suffer job losses.

Mr. John Wilkinson: This is a most instructive debate. It is rare—and very welcome—in this place to see such unanimity on both sides of the House. We must consider the origins of the bind in which the Government find themselves, as they lie with the European Union. I suspect that, over time, there will be ever more occasions such as this one, when hon. Members of all parties realise that the European Union is an instrument more for the destruction of jobs than for the generation of prosperity and the increase of our national wealth.
Mr. Murphy—one of the many scores of my constituents who have written to me—who is from Ruislip, put the matter very well. He wrote:
We are still a long way from a true single market and it seems ridiculous that this travel benefit is threatened when it provides so much for everyone in the EU, particularly in terms of employment. I find it incredible that UK is investing in employment schemes, but nothing is being done to save existing jobs.
Of course nothing is being done, because the Government feel impotent.
Hon. Members, even in our unanimity, know in our heart of hearts that we probably are impotent. We cannot alter European Union directives; nor can we reject them. The directives are incorporated into British law, over our heads, and British people must suffer the consequences, with their jobs.
The job losses caused by incorporation of those directives are in addition to the jobs that have been lost in the convergence process—in the continent's search for a single currency—and the job losses that will ensue from the fudged criteria which have been adopted for economic and monetary union, which will lead to higher interest rates on the continent than would otherwise appertain. It is a tragedy and a scandal.
We have heard so much from the Government about the possibilities that are open to the United Kingdom because of our presidency of the European Union. Let us judge them by their rhetoric, and determine whether their rhetoric can bear fruit by saving jobs that will otherwise be needlessly lost.
I earnestly hope that at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers—I gather that the Economic and Finance Council is the only body that can reverse this extraordinary decision, and must do so by unanimity—the Government will take the lead and say that they will not impose this ridiculous measure. If we for once decided unilaterally that we would act in the interests of our country and of our constituents, our voters would be less cynical about British politics and about this place. The trouble is that successive Governments have been supine in their attitude towards the European Union.
In reply to a parliamentary question from me, the Financial Secretary told me that I should blame my own party when it was in government for what it acquiesced to back in 1991. It is no good looking back. From June 1999, jobs will be lost unless action is taken now. A study is necessary, but we already know the consequences of abolition. Countless academic studies have shown the damage in terms of revenue and jobs lost, and the damage to infrastructural support and to the economic prosperity which has been generated throughout the regions where ports of entry to the United Kingdom are located. We hardly need more evidence, but if the Commission has to be persuaded by such evidence, let it provide it. I urge the Government not to allow Commissioner Kinnock to stand in the way of such an investigation, as he has done in the past.
Notwithstanding the Government's assertion that there is no hope of unanimity, I believe that there is genuine hope. The Duty-Free Confederation states:
Last year the Irish and Greek Governments publicly announced their support for the continuation of duty-free.
The German Government has publicly confirmed that it will work for the continuation of duty-free.
The French Government have indicated their support for a study of the issue.
The Finance Committee of the Italian Parliament unanimously passed two resolutions on 30 April (binding on their Government) calling for the continuation of duty-free sales.
It is believed that the Spanish, Swedish and Finnish Governments would also support such a review.
Indeed, all the indications are that no Member State would use its veto to preclude a study of the issue.
So what is standing in the way of the Government? I hope that it is not dogma, preconceived ideas or the inertia with which they usually confront diktats from the European Union—and diktats they are, because no other trading organisation of this kind has such imperialistic ambitions. Mercosur, the south American free trade zone, allows duty free between the states, as do the North American Free Trade Area and the Association of South-East Asian Nations. Only the European Union does not want it, because it hopes for a time when there will be no fiscal differentiation between member states as they will form just one state—an empire which is looking increasingly malign.

Mr. Paul Goggins: I shall be brief, but want to make four points. The first concerns economic regeneration. I represent many of the communities around Manchester airport, which have suffered above-average unemployment and poverty over the years. There are many positive aspects to the development and expansion of Manchester airport,


including the development of tourism—last weekend alone, 135,000 passengers passed through the airport—but the most important aspect is the creation of jobs.
Manchester airport is the employment lifeline for thousands of my constituents. Abolition of duty free would threaten the creation of jobs—indeed, it would mean the loss of jobs. I am advised that abolition would reduce income to Manchester airport in the first year by some £24 million, which would immediately lead to a reduction of 200 retail jobs and jobs with the airline companies that operate there. It is the fear of such job losses that has prompted dozens of my constituents to contact me directly.
As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said, Manchester airport is indeed a municipally owned airport, and abolition would have some additional adverse effects on such airports. The loss of revenue would not only impact on day-to-day spending but would have a huge effect on investment in infrastructure, because publicly owned airports cannot borrow in the way that private companies can, and therefore have to invest out of revenue. Also, the ultimate beneficiaries of the municipally owned Manchester airport are the council tax payers of Greater Manchester, and a reduction in the airport's income reduces the potential for improving other local public services.
Secondly, I should like politely but firmly to remind the Minister—I am sure that she is already well aware of this—that the success of our Government in their first year is due to the fact that they have not followed dogmatic solutions but have instead pursued policies that work in practice. Duty free is a policy which works in practice. Essentially, it is a deal that splits the unpaid duty between the passenger, who benefits from cheaper goods, and the transport provider, who can provide cheaper journeys. It is a very popular deal. Indeed, Gallup recently conducted a nationwide opinion poll and three quarters of the people who responded in the north-west said that they supported the retention of duty free.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, the decision that forms the basis of this debate was made by only a few people and based on a false premise. It would indeed be dogmatic to carry on with abolition at this stage, even though other aspects of harmonisation are lagging way behind. Such dogma would add £10 to the cost of each airline seat, and the worst impact would fall on regional airports. In fact, many small airline companies might even face the prospect of going out of business altogether. If we want a policy that works, we ought at least to defer the decision on abolition.
Thirdly, if we are faced with a choice between dogma and what works, I suggest to the Minister that the worst of all worlds would be to try to split the difference—stopping duty free at ports and airports but continuing it on ferries and aircraft. That would be an unfair and confusing mix and would fail to deal with many of the concerns expressed today.
Finally, I join hon. Members from all parties in asking the Minister to call for a full impact study, into the social and economic consequences of abolition. We have been promised such a study but we have not had it. Given the concerns and uncertainties that exist, it would be unwise to proceed without a proper analysis. From what we hear,

it appears that a growing number of European countries may welcome such an impact study. It would be appropriate for the United Kingdom, which has a duty-free industry four times the size of the European average, to take a lead in making sure that the study is undertaken and in deferring the implementation of abolition.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and all the other hon. Members who have requested the Government to support an impact study into the abolition of duty-free trade. There is no single market at the moment. There is a wide differential in duty and fiscal rates, and if we think we have a problem now with duty-paid cross-border shopping, let us see what happens from 1 July 1999 if we abolish duty free within the current legislative framework.
The decision in November 1991 to abolish duty free was taken in the light of an implicit assumption about harmonisation. Harmonisation has not occurred; indeed, in many cases, duty rates have diverged rather than converged. An impact study was promised by the Commission as far back as November 1990; now, eight years later, it has been requested by the European Parliament. All hon. Members who have spoken today have added their voice to that clamour to know what will happen.
My constituency is next to Gatwick airport. The livelihood of hundreds of my constituents depends on duty-free trade, and my constituents want to know why the Government are sticking so rigidly to this course. It is legitimate for them to expect the Government to know the consequences of the policies that they are pursuing. Ministers ought to be able to explain to hundreds of my constituents why the may lose their livelihoods.
I can put the case for duty free no better than my constituent, Miss Pierce, one of the scores of people who wrote to me:
The proposed abolition of duty/tax free 1999. Having worked in the duty free industry for over 5 years, I do feel very concerned that we may lose the right to work in or purchase duty free. I feel it will have a devastating effect on what has been a thriving and growing duty free business.
As an employee and a holidaymaker travelling within the European Union, I see buying duty free as big part/perk of travelling as do many people, and something I do not wish to lose.
In my view, the abolition of duty free goods within Europe will only cause harm and no good to our economy. Therefore I write to you today to ask for your support in preventing this happening.
Miss Pierce hit the nail on the head. There is no economic case for abolishing duty-free sales. All the studies so far—admittedly, they have been financed by the duty-free industry in the absence of anything from the European Union—show that abolition will produce no economic benefit. One effect that will be very deleterious will be an increase in the cost of travel for people for whom travelling is an activity that is right at the margin. Charter airlines can offer cheap travel to holiday destinations to people who otherwise would not have the opportunity to travel. People do not have to buy duty free and create the implicit subsidy to the airlines and the travel industry that brings travel within the range of ordinary people, but its abolition will be regrettable.


It is not good enough for the Government simply to blame the previous Administration. If they take on the policies of the previous Conservative Government, those policies become their policies, and they must defend them if they believe them to be correct.
The British presidency provides an opportunity to review the issue. In two weeks' time, at the request of the Irish, ECOFIN will finally consider it under "any other business". It has taken three quarters of the British presidency to persuade the Chancellor, with the Deputy Prime Minister in the van, even to look at the matter. Our opportunity to protect the interests of our country has nearly gone. I hope that, having heard the debate. and hon. Members' unanimous views, the Minister will press the Chancellor to support an impact study and to open his mind about the policy.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I add my voice to the unanimous view expressed by hon. Members this morning. I am happy to do so. Many of my constituents work at London Luton airport, in duty free and other parts of the air travel sector. Many thousands of jobs in Luton depend on the airport's success and the economics of the airport's operations and the airlines that use it are crucially affected by duty-free shopping.
If duty free is abolished next year, as currently planned, jobs in Luton will be lost, directly in duty-free sales and indirectly elsewhere. The airport's income will be substantially reduced and landing charges will be forced upwards. The price of tickets will inevitably rise and passenger numbers will fall. Abolition will also affect domestic flights that are not involved in duty free and, most crucially, the new low-cost airlines, Easyjet and Debonair, which have made a major contribution to our airport's current levels of growth and prosperity.
The Duty-Free Confederation provides statistics which suggest that landing charges will increase by an average of 20 per cent. and that the cost of package holidays and fares on the new low-cost scheduled airlines will also increase by up to 20 per cent. Luton airport overwhelmingly caters for those two markets.
I speak on behalf of my constituents and the economy of the Luton area, but even if I did not have a constituency interest, I would still argue the case for retaining duty free. First, many thousands of jobs all over Europe will be lost if duty free goes. With 18 million people unemployed in the EU, killing off more jobs for no good reason makes no sense. Secondly, there will be chaos when it goes because no practical replacement regime has been proposed. Thirdly, the UK Exchequer will lose, as inevitably there will be a surge in duty-paid sales to UK travellers in France, Spain and elsewhere to replace duty-free purchases. Job losses in the UK will also adversely affect the Treasury.
The problem that the Government face is essentially political, yet a strong stand by the British Government at ECOFIN would be welcomed at home and on the continent. All the major EU nations will support a decision to make the necessary legislative change to require an impact assessment study of the abolition of duty free and to secure the necessary delay. The Italian Parliament has already proposed a delay until 2002.

Several smaller nations also support our position. The only nation that opposes it is Denmark, but the indications are that it would not use its veto at ECOFIN. The best evidence suggests that the United Kingdom would be very popular at ECOFIN if it took a strong stand on the issue. We would be rocking no one's boat by taking a strong stand during our current presidency of the EU. Indeed, it would be expected of us because Britain would be affected more than any other country by the abolition of duty free.
It is not just about Luton airport; it is about jobs in Britain and in Europe and I urge the Government to take a strong lead at ECOFIN in two weeks' time.

Mr. Syd Rapson: Let me first declare an interest as a member of Portsmouth city council, which still owns the port. I support the request for an impact study, which is not much to ask and was promised previously. Without an impact study, we will not know the effects of abolishing duty free and therefore we will not be able to ameliorate them, as is required by European legislation. One of the strengths of the EU is that it has put in place directives requiring the amelioration of the effects of the policy, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
I speak on behalf of my constituency, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) would do the same. Portsmouth owns the port, which has two substantial operators, P and 0 and Brittany Ferries. Each year, the negotiations are very keen, as hon. Members would imagine. It is an excellent business. We squeeze as much as we can out of the operators, and the profits help to reduce the council tax, which is the lowest in Hampshire and no doubt in the south of England. The abolition of duty free would have the knock-on effect of forcing up our council tax and I could speak for about five hours on the resulting impact on the area.
The channel tunnel severely undermined our trade, which suffered a 15 per cent. drop last year. Having overcome that unfair attack, we now face the possibility of another 15 per cent. cut if duty free is abolished. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will listen to our requests for an impact study so that Europe can use its power to ameliorate the effects of the policy before it comes into force.

Mr. John Smith: If we are successful in getting an impact study, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that it should examine the role of regional airports in emerging regional economies throughout Europe, especially in the single European market? Air travel is the cutting edge of business communication and it may not be fully appreciated what effect any increase in costs to regional airports such as Cardiff international airport could have on the regional economy.

Mr. Rapson: I agree entirely.

Fiona Mactaggart: I recognise that the previous Government participated in the initial decision to abolish duty free. However, the present Government


will get the blame for taking the bad decision to get rid of something which people want and which creates jobs in constituencies such as mine. It is not being done on the basis of evidence. The evidence that has been produced suggests that continuing with the duty-free regime would be beneficial to the UK economy and would not damage the Treasury. This morning, everyone has been arguing for an effective impact study to find out whether or not that is true. If the duty-free regime is positive for the UK economy, let it continue.
Abolishing duty free will destroy the jobs of many of my constituents in Slough who work at Heathrow airport, which is probably one of the largest employment centres in the United Kingdom. Jobs in the duty-free regime carry on their backs other jobs that also generate income for the Treasury through taxed sales associated with duty free.
Duty free is not a subsidy from the taxpayer to the traveller; it is partly what oils the travel and tourism industry. About half of the £53 million of profit from sales at Heathrow is from duty-free sales. Those sales would generate about £5 million to the Treasury in duty. On that basis, it would take 88 years for the Treasury to receive the £440 million that Heathrow has already invested in the Heathrow Express.
The duty-free regime is a benefit to the UK economy and I hope that we will retain it, or at least have an impact study.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: There has been an impressive and almost unnatural degree of harmonisation across the Chamber on this subject. The only Labour Member who intervened to speak against duty free has since fled the field and left the Chamber entirely to hon. Members who appear to support the case for continuing the duty-free concession.
The subject was well introduced by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who made as good a case as possible for continuing duty free. His arguments have been supported on both sides of the House. Ending duty free will have consequences for employment, as well as wider trade, social and economic consequences.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) made the point that duty free may reduce the incentive to smuggle by providing an alternative, legitimate concession. If that concession ends next year, there could be an additional wave of smuggling, with which the Government are already grappling.
The previous Government recognised that duty-free sales in a single market could not continue for ever. With the abolition of frontier checks and of the fiscal frontier, they had to end. We argued for a lengthy transitional period. Norman Lamont wanted that to be between 10 and 15 years, but an end date was agreed. However, it is fully consistent with that to argue at the very least for an impact assessment because certain trends and developments predicted at that time, and on which the decision was based, have not materialised. The main consideration is that the wide duty differential, particularly between the United Kingdom and the continent, has if anything widened.
The Government are partly responsible for that because, whereas we froze the duties on alcoholic drinks in our last two Budgets and cut the duties on spirits, they have increased the nominal rates. One could say that, with the strengthening of the pound, which makes it cheaper to purchase goods on the continent, legally or illegally, the problem has worsened and the differential has increased.
There is therefore a strong case for a study of those trends and developments and consideration of whether the member states that made that early decision would have done so if they had known what would develop later.
There are also practical measures, which have not been discussed as much as they might have been. For example, if duty-free sales end next year, it must be decided what duty rate will apply to sales on ferries and aeroplanes. Should sales on a ferry be priced according to the duty rate of the country from which the ferry leaves? That would mean that a ferry travelling between the United Kingdom and France would have to change its duty structure and prices depending on which direction it was sailing.
Another suggestion is that retailers should apply the duty rate of the country from which they purchase their supplies. That could also create severe distortions. A ferry company that wanted to purchase British goods would arrange for the goods first to be transferred to France to get the lower duty rate and then put on the ferry for sale.
All that is clumsy, inefficient, confused and distorting. I should like the Financial Secretary to tell the House whether those practical measures have been discussed with the Commission and other member states, and what were the conclusions. If those problems have not been resolved, that is, in itself, a case for a review.

Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely important practical point. What would be the position of passengers who wanted to fly, for example, to Basle in Switzerland? The airport for Basle is located at Mulhouse in France, so would those passengers be eligible for duty free by virtue of their tickets to Basle, because Switzerland is not in the European Union'? What would be the eligibility of passengers flying to a non-EU country, who were diverted to an EU country because of weather or technical reasons?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is applying his ingenuity to asking practical questions to which I do not have the answers. I know that the ending of duty free and the subsequent pricing decisions raise complex issues, which must be addressed well beforehand to give ferry companies and airlines the opportunity to make appropriate purchasing and pricing decisions.
There is an almost overwhelming case for a study. The Government said that they would not oppose a study and then said that they would support one. In the light of this debate, they need to press for a study. We know that some member states are sympathetic to that. I ask the Financial Secretary, on behalf of other hon. Members who have spoken, what discussions have taken place with the Commission and other member states with a view to obtaining an impact study to deal with the legitimate concerns raised in the debate, such as the economic and employment consequences and the practical issues that have been exposed.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I shall take no lessons from the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) in addressing the serious problems about which my hon. Friends have spoken. After the right hon. Gentleman's Government unanimously agreed with every member state that duty free should be abolished in June 1999, they increased tobacco tax every year from 1991; they increased the duty on beer in 1992, 1993 and 1995, and they increased the duty on wine in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. He knows full well that the decisions on duty free were not predicated on an assumption of tax harmonisation. He has alleged that the Government are not taking responsibility for the position into which his Government locked this country—an allegation which is breathtaking in its contempt for my hon. Friends.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Financial Secretary give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I have been given hardly any time to wind up the debate and I will attempt to answer the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and other hon. Members. I shall cover our inherited position; what is happening at a European level; what the future regime may hold for us; and smuggling.
The other issue on which the debate was predicated was that everyone likes a bargain, and that, somehow, duty-free goods are a bargain. I urge hon. Members to look in some of the superstores in this country, which sell, for example, perfume that is cheaper than that in duty-free shops. I also urge them to look through catalogues to compare prices to see whether people really are getting a bargain.
In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton on securing this debate, I should remind the House that the unanimous decision to end duty free was taken in 1991 by the Council of Finance Ministers, which included the then Chancellor, Norman Lamont. The decision is not in this Government's gift. Strictly, therefore, duty free should have disappeared in January 1993 with the completion of the single market. Had it done so, this debate would not be taking place. It is true that the Government managed to get a concession and that the Council subsequently agreed to allow duty free to continue for another six and a half years until June 1999 in order to allow operators time to adjust and explore alternatives. The decision was not tied to any question of harmonisation. The matter is one of unanimity among member states; it is not a matter for the United Kingdom in isolation.

Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I should like to make my points. I shall not give way in the short time available.
The European Commission has already made the position clear. The EU Commissioner for taxation and the single market has said that he has no intention of making a proposal. Only Ireland is publicly supporting the case for extension.
Since the single market was established, the duty-free issue has been discussed on two occasions in the Council of Finance Ministers. On 11 November 1996, the question

of conducting a study—the very thing of which the Government will not stand in the way—was raised. In arguing for an impact study on behalf of the previous Government, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the then Chancellor, knew that there was not even a consensus in favour of that.
The matter was discussed in the Council as recently as 9 March. The Government's position was that they would not oppose any moves by the Commission to undertake a study into the effects of abolition, particularly if it considered the successor regime. Whatever hon. Members have been told by those campaigning to keep duty free, it was made clear that there was no enthusiasm among the Finance Ministers of other member states to reopen the matter.
The issue was also discussed, under the British presidency, in the EU Transport Council on 17 March—which is more than happened under the previous Government's stewardship—at the request of the Irish, who pressed the case for a study. Although a number of Transport Ministers supported it—  [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been good natured so far. Let us not spoil it in the last few minutes.

Dawn Primarolo: The Conservatives want to cover up their lack of action. They are being less than honest about the position that their Government took.
There was no consensus at the Transport Ministers' meeting. Indeed, the Netherlands and Denmark opposed the idea of a study. However, the matter is again on the agenda for the Council of Finance Ministers meeting on 19 May. The Government will again offer no objection to the study, but the likelihood is—[Interruption.] Conservative Members forget that we have the presidency and that we must ensure that it is used in order to forward decisions, not manipulate them. I must say in all honesty to my hon. Friends that the likelihood of a consensus on a study, let alone any desire to extend duty free beyond 1999, is very remote. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and others have said, other member states are not clamouring for an impact study. Indeed, they do not support the suggestion, let alone the suspension of abolition. Having set out the position, I shall turn to how we can try to take forward this very important debate.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What weight does the Minister give to the recent decision of the European Parliament?

Dawn Primarolo: I think that the question is, rather, what weight the Council of Ministers will give to that decision. My hon. Friends' points about the likely impact on jobs and the nature of the future regime are crucial. We should spell out that, although the industry was given six and a half years in order to help it adjust to the abolition of duty free, it has had no enthusiasm for actively pursuing the question of what a successor regime may look like. It is important that the Government, with the industry and the Commission, do not allow chaos to occur in June 1999, but address the very questions that have been posed in this debate. How do we have a successor regime? How do we ensure that we protect


jobs? How do we assess the likely impact on jobs? I shall return to those points with regard to the study on the matter undertaken by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions after I have given way.

Mr. John McDonnell: I welcome the Government's decision not to oppose the Irish proposal as a positive move. Heathrow is in my constituency, and 2,000 jobs are at risk. When we have experienced the loss of jobs in my constituency in the past as a result of Government and European policy on, for example, the arms and defence industry, we have been offered direct Government and European assistance through Konver. If we cannot block this measure, we should at least undertake an impact study. We should also be arguing for additional financial assistance to tackle potential job losses in constituencies such as mine.

Dawn Primarolo: I should make a number of points on the DETR study and the jobs issue. There is a huge range of speculation on how many jobs could be at risk.
The DETR study, which I am sure all my hon. Friends have studied very closely, estimates that, following abolition, 2,700 jobs could be lost, of which only one third would be in the UK, and that that would depend crucially on the nature of the successor regime and several discussions on it. Obviously, it is incredibly important that such discussions take place exactly to minimise the impact of the chaos that my hon. Friends have highlighted, which could ensue if the ostrich approach to policy—to pretend that duty free will not end in 1999 and that somehow, at the eleventh hour, there will be a suspension of a decision—continues. In the Government's assessment, there will not be such a suspension. We are moving to deal with all the possibilities, which is a darn sight more than the Conservatives ever did when they were in power. They are shedding crocodile tears about people's jobs, yet they failed to remind the industry that it had just six and a half years.
The Government take very seriously the issue that they have inherited from the previous Government. The Government will not promise miracles because we cannot deliver them. Even though we will not stand in the way of a study, and even though we want to see the impact of the successor regime on jobs, there is, in our estimation, no realistic prospect of an extension. If there is no consensus for a study at the Council of Finance Ministers in May, we should do our best to protect jobs and our interests, and make sure that we have a sensible regime after the chaos left behind by the Conservative Government.

Infertility Treatment

11 am

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am glad that the House has an opportunity to debate this subject today. It needs to be discussed in a spirit of extreme sensitivity, for there is no doubt that those who suffer the problems of infertility suffer a silent pain within society. I hope that I shall not give offence by what I say today, and I hope that colleagues will make their contributions in a similar spirit.
Natural fertility in human beings is relatively poor; we are not an efficient species. There is only a 20 to 25 per cent. chance of conception in each natural cycle. If those facts and the spontaneous rate of natural abortion were better understood, some of the pain of dashed expectations and the grief of miscarriage might be allayed. In society, pressure on couples is great. Before they are married, people ask why they are not married. If they are married, people ask why they do not have children. If they have one child, people ask why they are not having a second child. Against that background, a significant group suffer the pain of childlessness.
The causes of infertility are various. About one third can be attributed to problems experienced by the woman, and about 20 per cent. to problems associated with the man. A surprisingly high number of cases—some 30 per cent. —remain unexplained. This fact alone should galvanise the Government to redouble their efforts to investigate why the level of unexplained infertility is so high.
I should present my credentials at the start of the debate. I am not a scientific specialist on the subject. I know that others in the Chamber are, and they will talk more about the scientific aspects of the available treatments. I come to the debate very much as a mother, who is fortunate to have three children. However, I have gone through the problem of finding it very difficult to conceive and the strain that that places on a marriage, as both my husband and I were investigated to find who might be at fault. As in that 30 per cent. of cases, after all the examinations of genetic incompatibility and so on, the reason remained unclear. I have been there, but I have not experienced the degree of pain of those who reach the end of the process and are still unable to conceive.
One in six couples in the UK will experience difficulties in conceiving at some point in their reproductive lives. The extent of public funding for infertility treatments varies from region to region. Most infertility patients are either forced to seek private treatment to conceive, or at least are expected to contribute to the cost. One of the reasons that motivated me to apply for this debate is that my health authority—a relatively small authority—offered no assisted reproductive treatment in 1996-97. Effectively, no treatment was available to my constituents. This year, it is available, but only by extra-contractual referral. The budget for ECR is very restricted, so the prospect for the people I represent remains bleak.
For many couples, the only way in which to achieve successful conception is through techniques such as assisted reproductive techniques, or techniques that occur outside the human body, such as in vitro fertilisation. I will concentrate on IVF, but not to the exclusion of other available treatments.


According to the report of the fifth national survey of NHS funding for infertility services, almost one quarter of health authorities in the UK funded none of the modern assisted conception techniques such as IVF. Obviously, my authority would have been one of those. It is interesting that the recommended level of provision is 40 cycles of IVF treatment per 100,000 of the population. That was the recommended level in the Effective Healthcare Bulletin. That compares with the actual figures, which show that no health authority in the UK is providing that level of treatment.
The range is great. Scotland comes nearest to the recommended figure, with 27.5 treatments per 100,000 of population. Wales is next, with 23 treatments per 100,000. I will not go through the entire list but, around the middle, Anglia and Oxfordshire offer 13.6 treatments per 100,000. Another reason why I have chosen this debate is that the west midlands has the worst result, with only 3.5 treatments per 100,000. Northern Ireland publicly funds no modern treatments at all.
Underpinning the NHS provision is the principle that clinicians should have reasonable freedom to use their clinical judgment in respect of the treatment that they consider to be best for their patients, but patently it is difficult to see how there can be clinical freedom where the health authority has banned the treatment. The clinician can still recommend the modern treatment, but it will depend on a patient's capacity to go privately. The cost to the NHS of an IVF cycle—including drugs—is between £1,500 and £1,800. However, some units are able to provide treatment for as little as £1,000.
The cost of private care is significantly higher, and is estimated at £2,500 on average. Those figures are well beyond the pocket of many people. Thus, there is discrimination on economic grounds, as well as by region. The cost is not out of line with NHS treatments for other non-life threatening conditions, large though the sums may seem.
The main point of my speech is to call for equitable funding for infertility treatment throughout the NHS. It is manifestly unfair that one's postcode should determine access to treatment. The current fragmented nature of the availability of fertility treatment is cost ineffective, and the variable waiting lists tend to reduce the chance of success. The regional variation in eligibility criteria produces inequality, confusion and controversy about what help is available. My purpose today is to try to convince the Minister that cost-effective investigation and treatment should be offered routinely by health authorities in preference to some of the older treatments available, which have lower rates of success.
We need to achieve uniform provision and a full range of infertility investigations throughout the country. I draw the attention of the House to a written answer in Hansard in respect of infertility services. The Minister said:
We will challenge and address variations which are not based on the health needs and wishes of local people. We will aim for maximum consistency while still allowing appropriate local and individual responsiveness. We are currently considering what further advice the NHS should be given on infertility service provision." —[Official Report, 19 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 394.]
I very much hope that we shall hear news on that today.
If the existing money were better spent, a great deal could be achieved with little, if any, extra expenditure. Clearly, national guidelines are needed. Few authorities

do not have some form of eligibility criteria for IVF treatment. Only 8 per cent. of all health authorities did not have such criteria in 1996. Of the 66 authorities that use those criteria, 99 per cent. —nearly all—specify a limit on a woman's age and the majority have an age limit of between 35 and 40. One health authority offers IVF treatment to women up to the age of 43. The age limit is crucial for two reasons. First, the later age of childbearing in women may well mean that they wake up to the fact that they have an infertility problem only when they are approaching, or have even passed, the age of 40. Secondly, IVF treatment is much more successful in younger women and the success rate tails off as the woman increases in age. Perhaps it is not surprising that the age limit restrictions placed on the male are higher. In those authorities that place an age limit on the male, it tends to lie between 45 and 60.
Of the authorities that provide IVF treatment, 49 per cent. have criteria related to the length of a couple's relationship—one region in Scotland sets a minimum of five years—most have criteria based on the number of previous children and 67 per cent. have them based on the number of previous cycles of assisted conception, while 88 per cent. put a limit on the number of cycles that will be funded. It varies from one to three cycles.
Throughout the country, there is a wide range of eligibility criteria. The system is just as discriminatory if one is in a health authority that borders on another where such an age restriction applies. Women are well aware of the biological clock ticking and it is most unfortunate for those who find themselves on the wrong side of the border. Candidates may try to get over the postcode criteria by moving into an authority that would be able to meet their needs because of its different criteria. Health authorities perceive that problem and strenuous efforts are being made to clamp down on it. The inequality and variation in the criteria could encourage people to try to buck the system in that way.
To pre-empt the criticism that Opposition parties always ask for more money without saying where it could come from, I suggest to the Minister that a cost-effective way in which to improve access to and the availability of infertility treatment could be to reduce the number of centres and so raise success rates at those that remain. There is definitely a correlation between lower success rates and the number of cycles. That is not an uncommon phenomenon in health provision—the higher throughput tends to improve the success rates of treatments. Again, there is a surprising variation in the number of live births per egg collection at centres that provide IVF treatment. Hon. Members will see what I mean if I provide a few examples. Bourn Hall clinic has a 22 per cent. success rate of egg collections that led to pregnancy; the assisted conceptions clinic in Bath has a higher rate at 25.7 per cent.; Holly house, which is another well-known centre, has a comparable rate of 23.7 per cent.; the Nurture centre in Nottingham has a rate of 24.3 per cent.; and the centre in Leeds has a 23.2 per cent. success rate. Those figures are clustered and are probably close to the optimum being achieved in the country. However, other centres have a significantly lower success rate—for example, Glasgow with 5.6 per cent., Salford with 2.6 per cent. and, according to my figures, south Manchester which has a zero rate—that certainly gives us cause for concern.
Elsewhere in the health service, a similar phenomenon exists with other types of treatment. The higher the number of cycles, the more cases are treated successfully


and the opportunity for teaching and imparting the skills that lead to success is also greater. The only difficulty with this sort of treatment is that, by its very nature, the patient cannot be too far from the treatment centre. Perhaps we could think in terms of regional centres of excellence with a good success rate. In concentrating funding in that way, we could achieve more treatments with a better success rate without spending more in absolute terms.
I crave my colleagues' indulgence, but I cannot conclude my contribution to this debate without flagging up some of the associated ethical issues, and I am about to stray into some controversial areas. I have no desire to block the way for others less fortunate than I to benefit from the advances that science brings, but some of those scientific advances have already given rise to abuse and the law has to be reviewed continually to take them into account. Only last weekend, in The Sunday Times of 3 May, we read the publicity about the fact that 300,000 embryos may have been used for research without explicit parental consent, which has caused distress to the parents and donors involved and must raise the question whether the laws in force are adequate to prevent abuse.
The use and subsequent treatment of spare embryos poses a general ethical problem, which stems from the very fact that more embryos have to be generated because the success rate for implantation is only 20 to 25 per cent. In most cases, a maximum of three embryos only can be implanted because of the higher risk of multiple pregnancy posed by that method of treatment, which can result in the need for a selective reduction in the number of embryos. That can cause considerable distress to the patient involved, apart from the ethical question of balancing the statistical probability of success with the prospect of having to reduce selectively a life so created.
An extreme example of what can go wrong was the Mandy Allford case, in which the number of successful implantations was exceptionally high—it had been artificially increased by a fertility drug. It was so high that in the end, none of the babies survived. That unacceptable waste of human life must raise the question whether the laws are adequate to protect the intrinsic worth of human life.
Another area of concern is the origin of the products of conception. In some cases, a donor is essential, either for eggs or for sperm, but, as yet, little research has been carried out into the psychological effect on the parent and/or the child, or indeed the donor, of that aspect of infertility treatment. The law on that aspect came under scrutiny with the Diane Blood case. She wanted to use the sperm of her deceased husband to create new life. Baroness Warnock made the position expressly clear when she said:
we do not believe it is in the best interests of the child to be conceived without a living father or mother as this may give rise to profound psychological problems".
A way round the law was found in that highly publicised case, however, when Mrs. Blood was permitted to seek treatment abroad. I ask the Minister whether that does not, to some extent, undermine the safeguards that Baroness Warnock had in mind.
Cloning is a recent development connected with the treatment of infertility and IVF in particular—it means creating a genetically identical human being. I have the good fortune to serve on the Select Committee on Science

and Technology, and my colleagues on the Committee devoted much attention to that subject in a previous Session of Parliament, but it is a continually moving science. We have the example of Dolly the sheep, cloned from an adult using the method of nuclear replacement. If that technique is further developed, the unique genetic identity of a family could be undermined. Surely a couple who plan to have a family should not, ethically, be able to plan for that family's genetic characteristics.
Some may regard cloning as a way in which to replace a lost child or adult, but that would be a form of cheating death. It would also affect the integrity of the family unit by blurring parent-child distinctions—for example, if I could clone my husband, the clone would be a twin, not our child. If we allowed such a technology to develop, we would be moving away from our concept of how a unique life is generated.
We must ask whether the law is moving at the same pace as technology, and what we really want for the human race. Egg cells, such as those used in the cloning of Dolly the sheep, have 46 chromosomes—a full complement of genetic information to create new life. We need a wider international ban on nuclear replacement techniques.
Two other ways in which to deal with infertility and its difficulties give rise to ethical considerations—surrogacy and adoption. The concept of surrogacy is not unknown in history—there is a biblical instance which, although perhaps not a good example, shows that the practice was known in ancient times. Surrogacy has been publicised in modern times because it is commercially available in some countries. It is hard to prevent commercial surrogacy—although it is illegal in this country, we know from the media of people who have managed to get round the law.
My fundamental objection to surrogacy is the curious relationship that develops as the host mother has to dissociate herself from the child whom she carries for nine months. The psychological problems that arise when the mother has to part from the child are well publicised—some surrogate mothers find parting very difficult, which causes heartbreak and pain to the couples. The question who is responsible if the surrogate child is born handicapped has not been put to the test in law, but we need to deal with it as part of our general consideration of the problems of childlessness.
For many couples, adoption is the only solution to unresolvable infertility problems. Many of us know from experience that adoption can be difficult. There are few new-born babies available for adoption, and couples face a long and hard process if they choose to adopt. I should be glad if more were done to make that process easier, in human terms, without compromising the integrity of protecting the needs of the child at the centre.
I hope that, by evoking some of the more complex and controversial ways in which to deal with childlessness, I have not distracted the House from my basic premise that more should be done to give equal access to couples who need fertility treatment. We all understand that rationing is a feature of public health provision, but to decide who should receive treatment on the basis of a postcode is patently unjust—the disparity in eligibility criteria between health regions that offer treatment is an injustice. I urge the Minister most strongly to consider


ways in which equal access to infertility treatment could be ensured, and to establish national guidelines for eligibility.

Mr. Fraser Kemp: I shall be very brief, as I know that a number of hon. Members want to speak. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, and I congratulate her on bringing this issue before the House—one of the great strengths of the House is that such issues can be discussed.
I want to contribute to the debate because of two of my constituents, who have twice visited me at my surgery. They are decent, law-abiding folk who wanted the national health service to provide infertility treatment. They had spent £2,924, which was all their money—they are ordinary people in ordinary jobs—to obtain drugs and support privately, as, unfortunately, the health region that covers my constituency would not allow them to receive treatment on the NHS.
One of the great tragedies is that the couple would have been eligible for treatment if they had lived in the neighbouring health authority. Such circumstances cause great upset and heartache. We often read in local newspapers of cases in which couples are successfully treated for infertility and have children, but those stories can cause pain to others—they feel robbed because they cannot receive treatment because of where they live.
I understand that a balance must be struck between local decision making and national criteria, but a fundamental principle of the national health service must be equality of access to services, irrespective of where people live. I have taken this matter up with my hon. Friend the Minister, who wrote to me in October saying that the Government supported that principle and were determined to implement it. She also said that fertility treatment was an area of concern.
I believe that anything less than equality of access undermines the basic principle of the national health service. If people are denied support, but see others who live two or three miles away receiving that support, they will lose confidence in the system. We know from personal experience of the heartache that infertility causes couples. I am glad that many of the one in six who need support finally have children, but many of those who need specialist help cannot afford to go privately.
We must deal with access issues as well as research issues as quickly as possible, not only for my two constituents, but for the one in six couples who need infertility treatment. The Government should act decisively and put a stop to the nonsense that eligibility for treatment is assessed on postcode, not on need.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) both on securing this debate and on the sensitive and intelligent way in which she introduced it. She highlighted the importance of the issue, which is further illustrated by the fact that some 35,000 couples undertake infertility treatment privately every year, often incurring significant financial hardship. The issue is not

simply about money, however; indeed, as the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) said, many couples would willingly spend more if they could.
I hope that those who read or hear about the debate will realise that we are sensitive to the difficulties that many couples face. The national health service is not only for those who are ill; it must promote public health and remedy what might properly be called disease. Before we even discuss public policy, we need to understand the importance that many couples attach to the issue—they believe that their well-being is bound up with their ability to choose whether to have children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden made an important point about the increasing likelihood of success with some infertility treatments. She rightly mentioned the Bourn Hall clinic, which is in my constituency. On a recent contract that the clinic undertook for a health authority, 50 per cent. of the 90 couples involved were able to have a child. That illustrates how the technology is moving on.
We are presented with a paradigm of the problem facing the NHS generally: technology is achieving higher success rates and giving greater incentives to seek treatment, and treatments such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection are drawing into infertility treatment patients who might otherwise have felt that it was futile. That is exacerbating demand on the NHS in the longer run.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East are right: the availability of treatment should not be determined by one's geographical location. In Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority, only 16 couples, out of a population of half a million, are currently contracted for fertility treatment, and no further couples are being accepted on the waiting list. The treatment will effectively be unavailable in the area.
In many health authorities, general practitioners may be able to help couples by prescribing fertility drugs, even though the couples are paying for the clinical procedures. The average cost for the procedures is about £1,600, and for the drugs about £500. Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority now issues strong guidance to general practitioners not to prescribe the drugs. The difficulties and costs are clearly greater in some parts of the country than in others.
We must recognise that the different eligibility criteria in different areas are not necessarily based on clinical assessments. They are often driven by sympathy, which of course I do not despise, rather than clinical assessment of the best circumstances in which to treat couples. We must consider what the NHS should be providing for the population as a whole—to be blunt, that is a rationing issue and a political issue which Ministers must decide—and what it is there to do.
We must all accept that any health authority, and indeed any general practitioner, must set priorities. We cannot intervene and say that one treatment must be provided in any circumstances, but the fact that infertility treatments are available only in certain areas means that the NHS loses its force as a national health service, serving the whole population.
I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's point that there is a case for national guidelines and for bringing together the NHS Executive, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the British Fertility Society to establish


some basic national eligibility criteria, while recognising that priorities in individual areas may make it impossible to standardise completely throughout the country.

Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because my daughter is a test-tube baby and I know something of the personal pain of which other hon. Members have spoken.
While researching a book that I wrote on the subject, I spoke to many women about their experiences of fertility services. For many of them, after they had undergone a range of different treatments, the end result was the great happiness of having a baby; but for many, even if it worked out in the end, the price, physically, emotionally and financially, was very high.
I spoke to women who had been treated by two or three clinics or doctors at once, sometimes receiving different treatments, and to others who had spent almost all their adult lives on the treadmill of treatment—it is an emotional roller-coaster—until they finally gave up in despair, without ever having had a proper explanation of what had happened or why, and sometimes having suffered serious side effects.
I learned some lessons from that experience. One was about the desperate need for care that is based on need. At present, 90 per cent. of infertility treatment is in the private sector. Most of the clinics that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned are in the private sector and accept people only if they can pay. With private treatment, people literally shop around. I speak from experience: one picks up the telephone and asks the clinic how much it charges, what treatment it provides, what ages it caters for, what the waiting room is like, and many other questions.
By and large, one can get treatment provided that one can pay the bill, and that is a very big proviso. In researching my book, I spoke to many couples who had mortgaged their homes to raise the money to pay for repeated cycles of treatment over many years. People's ability to have a family becomes dependent on the size of their bank balance. I might be insufficiently new Labour, but I think that that is fundamentally wrong in a country with a national health service and a Government who are committed to equality.
I discovered that there was an urgent need for continuity of care, from diagnosis of the condition through to resolution. For many people, that is a long and painful journey which might end in adoption, in pregnancy, in a baby or in simply deciding to go and do something else with one's life. The one place in which the complex issues encountered by the one in six couples who have problems with fertility cannot be talked through and resolved is in private consulting rooms, because there is neither the time nor the space, and most people do not have the money.
Many women have complications as a result of the treatment. I spoke to a woman whose pregnancy turned out to be ectopic. Having been discharged by her private clinic, she was left traipsing around from one accident and emergency ward to another, trying to get help for her distressing, painful and dangerous condition.
I found out a great deal about the Russian roulette of access to services. As a Member of Parliament, I have a home in Northamptonshire and a home in Southwark.

In Northamptonshire, the health authority provides no fertility services, so people are forced to go private. In Southwark, one can get treatment, with certain limitations and provided that one is under 40. There is a stark contrast between the different health authorities' approaches.
The previous Labour Government had the great foresight to set up the Warnock committee, which considered all aspects of the new reproductive technologies and produced a report that was one of the great classics of medical ethics. It said a great deal about the ethical approach to the problems that the hon. Member for Meriden spoke about, and the principles have served us well down the years.
The Warnock report also had much to say about the provision of services, although that has been less publicised; it certainly has not been implemented. The report spoke of the need for us to think about national standards and a proper network of provision, so that we would not have the problems associated with the present patchwork quilt of services, under which what people receive depends on either their postcode or their bank balance.
Since the report came out, there have been changes, many of which have worked in favour of greater provision of infertility services. Success rates have increased and costs have come down. I believe that for the Labour party in government, infertility services represent one of the great pieces of unfinished business. It would be a fitting tribute to the work of the previous Labour Government if the present Labour Government completed the work begun all those years ago, and secured proper, fair and equitable access to fertility services for people throughout the country, with services clearly based on need and continuity of care. People's ability to have one of the most precious things in life, a family, would then be properly planned, fair and open.

Dr. Peter Brand: This is a debate about whether the NHS is really a national health service. Today, we should be offering congratulations on the enormous advances that have been made in the treatment of infertility—a tremendous clinical and scientific success story. Instead, we are debating the failure of the NHS, because the story is one of failure to provide fair access to services.
We have heard interesting examples from both sides of the House, and I welcome the realisation by politicians that we need to start talking realistically about rationing. Such decisions cannot be left to doctors; we cannot pretend that they are clinical decisions. There are clinical decisions to be made, about eligibility criteria for starting courses of in vitro fertilisation and for the investigation and treatment of infertility in general. However, a host of other eligibility criteria have been produced, and they have nothing to do with clinical practice.
Some eligibility criteria are based on the financial cycle. In my health authority area, one could have two cycles a year, but no more than four. We can imagine the sort of family planning that went into ensuring that one managed four consecutive cycles without falling foul of the rules. In the context of clinical practice, that is nonsense.
It is wrong for a local or regional health authority, or even for an individual GP, to start making value judgments about whether a couple is stable enough to


deserve such treatment. People should not pretend that that is a clinical decision. Such decisions are emotive and political, and they should be made by people who are politically accountable, yet the way in which the NHS is now structured gives no local accountability whatever. People cannot sack their health authority. They can write letters—to their local Member of Parliament, for example—but, at the end of the day, the only responsibility is for the bottom line, for coming in on budget.
The only accountability is at parliamentary level. If we are to have a national health service, it is right for the Minister to set out clearly what people's entitlement and expectations from the service are likely to be. I am not prejudging the issue, because it is for the Government to set out clearly what they are prepared to fund and to take the political consequences if they get it wrong.
If the Government set out clear entitlements, we shall be able to integrate the service between the private sector and the NHS, and introduce a proper policy whereby GPs can prescribe and give the injections that make the egg ready for IVF treatment—we are talking, in the main, about IVF. There would be a planned service so that people would not have the awful embarrassment of having to chase around seeing multiple agencies, and sometimes being devious, as the only way of achieving what they desperately want.
Such an integrated service would also stop people bankrupting themselves. They would know where they were with fertility treatment. So often, people have two treatments on the NHS and are so sure that a third one would work that they see whether they can raise the money, and go into debt. Even if they are successful, that is an awful way to start a family.
The mark of a civilised society is not only how it treats ill health but how it promotes health. I am glad that we have a Minister responsible for the promotion of health and well-being. Personally, I believe that there is a role for the state in ensuring that people can have babies and a family if they wish. We could indeed create the supportive society to which everybody pays lip service. However, to achieve that, we need to will the resources.
The Government could be brave and say, "That form of treatment is not an NHS responsibility, but we might make a contribution for people who cannot afford to pay," which would be a sort of means test in reverse. I would not support that view. I think that everyone should be entitled. However, I also know that many people who undergo IVF treatment are keen to make a contribution, which makes their baby even more valued.
Under the present system, either people get the treatment because they can afford it—or because they can borrow the money—or they get nothing. That is not the national health service that I believe in, and I do not think that it is the national health service that the Minister believes in, either.

Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on choosing the debate and on introducing it in a sensitive and erudite way. I should like to play a part in the debate by discussing fertility and the reasons for infertility, and what

we can do about it. I do not apologise for concentrating on male infertility, because, in my experience, there is still a misapprehension in Britain that most infertility is due to the woman. I want to put that myth to rest.
The evolutionary drive to pass on one's genes to the next generation is a powerful force. The hon. Member for Meriden mentioned the social influences on that process, in terms of getting married, having children and living happily ever after. Sadly, the biological processes of the production of sperm and egg do not always allow that to happen.
The hon. Lady also mentioned that one third of fertility disorders are attributable to the male. In my experience, the vast majority of cases investigated involve both male and female factors. There is a tendency for the official figures to underestimate the extent of the problem, as many couples do not seek help because of embarrassment or lack of funds. Many are reluctant to seek assistance.
Infertility is often regarded as a nuisance illness, but, in fact, it is a major source of depressive illness and psycho-social morbidity in the United Kingdom. In that sense, it makes heavy demands on medical and social services.
What are the causes of male infertility? There may be a deficiency in sperm numbers, a reduction in sperm motility, the production of abnormal forms of sperm—involving the size of the head, for instance—blood vessel abnormality around the testes, obstruction of the sperm ducts, testes hidden in the abdominal cavity, or, of course, impotence.
Some of those are caused by genetic factors, some by physical and surgical events—infections, through mumps, for example—and some by environmental causes such as heat. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many people in Scotland advocate the wearing of kilts to protect sensitive organs from the effects of heat—I am not declaring an interest in kilt wearing, incidentally. Radiation also has a major effect on sperm production.
Drugs, alcohol and tobacco are also well known to have effects on sperm production. There is also increasing evidence of adverse trends in several measures of male reproductive health—in testicular cancer, for example. There is also the increasing use of environmental chemical contaminants that mimic oestrogen hormone-like activity. Although the causal relationship is by no means proven yet, and diet and life style might be equally important, findings about the effects of hormone-like chemicals on wildlife make one think that the so-called endocrine disruptors may be important factors affecting sperm production.
Questions have been asked about semen quality as sperm counts fall; there is international agreement on that point—about 20 per cent. of our population have so-called low sperm counts. If they want further details, I recommend that hon. Members read a good document produced this year by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on hormone-mimicking chemicals.
What of the treatments that are now available? The media have recently been awash with reports on the miracle drug Viagra, which is crudely called, in that all-American way, the "Pfizer-riser" and which is exciting males across America to the extent that 40,000 prescriptions are issued every day and it has almost become a recreational drug. It is given for what we in the business call erectile dysfunction. Whether it will come


to this country and how it does so remains to be seen. There are also surgical methods, but few studies have been made of microsurgical techniques to loosen duct abnormalities, and little has been happening on what should be an exciting front.
Other exciting treatments are becoming available, including intra-uterine insemination, which has its problems, as hon. Members have pointed out; in vitro fertilisation, which has changed our whole concept of male infertility; donor insemination; and intracytoplasmic injection, the ICSI method, which is relatively new. Human need has been so desperate that people have been prepared to accept the latter treatment before full scientific tests have been carried out. That is part of the problem. Many babies have been born by that method, whereby a single sperm is delicately and skilfully put into an egg cell and, although few people have the necessary skill to do that, the technique is being developed throughout this country. Men can now father children by that technique, and success rates are high at Bourn Hall clinic in Cambridgeshire and at the Hammersmith hospital under a distinguished member of another place.
Centres are licensed according to ethical compliance and not treatment efficiency, so couples might be squandering both resources and their chance of parenthood in having to seek treatment in the private sector for about £2,000 per session; only the most affluent in our society can afford to do that. However, ICSI treatment means that 35 per cent. of infertile males get a viable pregnancy in a single cycle, which is better than the IVF record at this stage. It is a remarkable development and a success story in male infertility. Problems may yet be encountered with ICSI, and further studies are being carried out, but the babies born so far by the technology have no higher incidence of any detectable abnormality than the general population of babies born after in vitro fertilisation or natural events.
Since the introduction of the internal market, funding for infertility treatment has almost dried up, as purchasers tend to classify it alongside cosmetic surgery and the removal of tattoos. For many people, however, infertility is a dominating cloud over their lives and a source of marriage break-up. One patient I know in Norwich, who is now sterile, had his viable sperm stored before the introduction of the internal market in a BUPA hospital under NHS funding arrangements. He is unable to use that sperm, because there is now no NHS funding available for him to purchase it, so he has no access to his own genetic material.
Furthermore, for a long time now, no NHS funding has gone into infertility research, where there is much work to be done. Science will be able to overcome many of the problems with some of the techniques I mentioned, as long as the Government continue to fund the NHS and ensure that the internal market does not create an unequal distribution of resources.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) succeeded in obtaining this debate. Despite the fact that one in six couples will require some form of assistance to have a child, there seems to be little public sympathy for such people. One wonders why that is so, and one hopes that the debate will help to redress the balance.
Recently, Fay Weldon described women without children as:
These barren twigs on the tree of life, this stunted growth.
She gave the impression that women were to blame for their failure to bear children. I am the mother of two children and was able to conceive when I and my husband decided that we wished to start a family, so I have no personal experience of infertility to contribute to the debate. However, I have encountered couples whose lives are completely dominated by their failure to have a much-wanted child and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), I realise what a devastating impact infertility can have on their lives and their health.
Why are the public so unsympathetic? A survey carried out by my local health authority revealed that there was little public support for funding for fertility treatment. Perhaps some of the publicity given to certain women who have received fertility treatment is partly to blame, but the fact remains that the majority of people who seek this form of medical intervention are from stable backgrounds—couples who have been together for some time and who want to start a family.
The other aspect of the lack of sympathy may he that there is such a stigma attached to the inability of a woman to conceive or of a man to father a child that the subject is not talked about much. Perhaps this debate will help to get people talking. It is excellent that two women Members of Parliament have spoken publicly about their own experiences; the more people are able to discuss the issues, the more public support will be generated. Whether or not there is public support, it is wrong that the availability of treatment varies according to the area in which one lives or whether one can afford to pay. I hope that, in her reply, my hon. Friend the Minister will give some hope that we will start to develop national guidelines for a comprehensive service in future.
In Birmingham today, a meeting is taking place between the health authority and the clinical directors of the relevant trusts to consider how to improve the service in Birmingham. At present, only £50,000 a year is allocated, which is about one tenth of what is needed. That leads to grave difficulty in deciding who should receive treatment and to enormous waiting lists. That is clearly unsatisfactory, so the health authority is looking at other services it provides. Many general gynaecological services relate to infertility and, if clearer protocols were drawn up in respect of access to such services, we might be able to release money for the provision of infertility services. There is also the question of where services are provided and the need to set up tertiary centres which, when funding becomes available, will be able to offer good prospects of success with staff who have the necessary experience to provide treatment.
I join other hon. Members in calling on the Government to look seriously at the problems relating to infertility treatment. If we are to have a genuinely national health service, as opposed to a national illness service, we should be providing national guidelines for a comprehensive sub-fertility service in this country.

Fiona Mactaggart: I reflected for some time before contributing to the debate, partly for some of the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for


Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) such as the public view of infertility and the hostility of which infertile people are often victims. As a single infertile woman, I thought that perhaps I should not speak in the debate, using my experience of private fertility services. Like probably all single women in this country, I was unable to gain access to NHS fertility services, and I want to look at the quality of the services and whether things can be done to improve fertility services for all people in Britain.
This is an important issue because of the effect that sub-fertility can have on people's lives. It creates a feeling of powerlessness and confusion. It is connected to the Darwinian requirement to reproduce, which means that fertility is closely connected to one's identity. That is the main reason why, in so many people, sub-fertility leads to depressive illness and, consequently, high expense for the NHS.
It is wise and sensible for us to provide for that health obligation. It is clear that, at present, the health service is not doing that; it is failing in a number of ways. In many parts of the country, fertility treatment is absolutely inaccessible. Some time before I was elected, I attended a Berkshire health authority meeting considering the range of treatments not normally approved of by the health authority. I vividly remember speaking to a clinician who said that, in many cases, he felt that the health authority's decisions were wise because the treatments being excluded from funding were ineffectual. However, he felt strongly that it was wrong to exclude fertility treatment from funding, particularly IVF, because it is an increasingly effective clinical measure, as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) pointed out.
Another important issue is the provision of information. Many women feel that attempting to find out about treatment makes their situation and their confusion greater. Doctors are often not well informed, and women often have to undergo long, tortuous and confusing investigations, some of which are not particularly necessary and some of which are inefficient. After all that, they may find, as I did, that they have reached the end of road and that the NHS will no longer provide treatment. They then go through what can only be compared to trying to read the form of race horses by trying to work out which private clinic—if they can afford it—is the most appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) described a much more efficient sounding approach than that which I experienced, but it is confusing and difficult. It is necessary to look under the statistics such as those quoted by the hon. Member for Meriden. Some centres where the statistics are not so good may take older women. It is difficult for the ordinary person seeking treatment to know what to do. There are failures in the quality of information across public and private provision. The health service should look at that.
The health service needs to provide better support for families to help them deal with the experience of treatment, which can be devastating for those involved. They need help to gain access to the most effective treatment. That is the responsibility of the Government. The Government should be centring treatment on the places where it works rather than adopting a scattergun approach, allowing people to carry out the treatment even if they are not excellent at it. It is a relatively expensive

provision and we have a responsibility to ensure that it is effective. It is no help to infertile couples to give them access to nearby treatment if it is ineffective. That must be a priority.
The Government need to deal with the issue of who should have access to treatment. It is not appropriate to leave it to individual doctors. However, sometimes the confusion created by individual doctors helps us to get through the moral decisions that we like to avoid taking. That is one of the reasons why Governments, health authorities and so on duck aspects of such decisions. We must take responsibility for that—it is our job. There should be a public debate about who should be eligible.
It is my view that there are cases where people who are not in standard relationships or stable marriages should be eligible for such treatment. Whatever view we reach, it should be debated publicly so that people know at the beginning of the heartache whether they have any chance of obtaining treatment or whether—to add to the horse racing analogy—they are betting on a blind horse and will not obtain treatment because of their age or their relationship.
There are other things the Government can do to help those who are sub-fertile. One of the things we are already doing, and which I welcome, is improving access to child care and introducing family-friendly employment policies, which make it more likely that women will try to have children at a younger age. I believe that one of the reasons for the fertility crisis is that women are having children later, and that is partly because of the structure of the labour market. If we can make it possible for women to start their families earlier, some of these problems may not arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) referred to the importance of tackling environmental policies which have an impact on fertility. The Government should be aware of that. I believe that improved sex education and sexual health among young people can help them to avoid conditions that can affect their fertility. In all those ways, there is a responsibility—it is a difficult responsibility to deal with well—for the Government to seek to improve the quality of fertility provision. We are failing women and men around the country and, as a community, we are paying the price of that failure in their depressive illnesses.
As the technology and quality of care improve, we have an opportunity to make a difference to such people's lives. We can give more couples access to treatment and improve the quality of it. We can ensure that people are informed about and supported through treatment when they can get it.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If anybody had any lingering doubts about whether the reform that led to Wednesday morning debates would be worth while, they had only to listen to the standard of contributions to this debate. I am only sorry that time does not allow me to do justice to the eight excellent contributions we have heard. I thought that the contribution of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was remarkable and I commend her for it.
I add my compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for having introduced this debate. When I was preparing my notes last night,


I realised that I should commend her not only for the choice of subject but for her courage in introducing a topic for an hour-and-a-half debate when it could be debated endlessly.
The subject raises a number of implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden touched on some of the moral and ethical implications surrounding it; to have taken that on is remarkable. She gave due tribute to all attitudes and views without causing offence. If I achieve that, I shall have done well.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the way in which services are provided throughout the country and what might be taken into account if provision were to be made universal. The first problem is that there is no universal application, no universal guidelines and no rules or regulations. After making a proper assessment, health authorities purchase the services that they believe are necessary for looking after the health needs of the local population. That gives rise to substantial inconsistencies throughout the country, and, inevitably in such a system, there are disputes about treatments—I do not say that pejoratively, but use shorthand—that might be considered to be on the fringe.
A number of hon. Members referred to those disparities, which were summed up in a 1995 report by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts. It included a case study on in vitro fertilisation treatment: five authorities were not purchasing IVF, while others offered a limited service based on factors such as age, whether there was a child from a previous relationship, and how successful treatment was likely to be. The situation has worsened since then.
It may be helpful to discuss the attitude of two health authorities, not to criticise them, but because the criteria that they have adopted will resonate with hon. Members who have spoken. In May 1997, The Independent reported:
The Birmingham Health Authority is proposing to stop assisted-conception treatment on the NHS unless there are exceptional … circumstances …
The plan … would mean that most childless couples in the area would have to seek help from private organisations".
It added that the director of health
will present a paper … recommending that the authority backs the recent survey which concluded that routine NHS funding of fertility treatment should cease. Most people interviewed for the survey said cancer treatment should be well-funded, and saw assisted-conception services as having the lowest priority.
A report published in March 1997 discussed North Wales health authority's decision that, from 1 April, women aged 36 and over in north Wales would not be referred for treatment and no treatment would be given to women aged 39 or over. It laid down other criteria, stating:
Only heterosexual couples who can prove they have been in a stable relationship together for at least two years will be considered and there must be no living children from their relationship.
It also discussed the number of cycles of treatment for people who met the criteria.
One can always challenge a health authority's judgment in those matters by using the NHS complaints procedure, but a health authority that has reached decisions on criteria that are intelligently arrived at, even if not accepted by everyone, could not be said to be in breach of its obligations. The Minister will correct me if I am

wrong, but I cannot recall any case, and my researchers have not discovered one, in which a health authority was successfully appealed against because of the way in which it restricts provision of infertility and IVF treatments. We are dealing with an inconsistent patchwork, which, given the way in which health services are developed locally, is inevitable.
What reasons are traditionally—I use that word deliberately—given by local health authorities for not producing this treatment? Some may say, "This is not an illness; it is a treatment." The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), in a phrase that I shall use on other occasions without attribution so that I can take the credit for it, talked about having a national health service, not a national illness service. On whatever criteria are used, these services fall within a national health service. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden talked about silent pain, which is a poignant phrase. No one reaches my age without friends and relatives going through that. The pain may be silent in public, but the anguish that it causes is dramatic.
Traditionally, it is said that the treatment is not very successful. One statistic, which tells only half the story, appears in a report by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Agency that published birth rates for individual IVF clinics. In 1995–96, 15.1 per cent. of treatment cycles in the United Kingdom resulted in at least one live birth. Taking a superficial view, as people have done in the past, one might say that a health authority should not spend too much money on a process with an 85 per cent. failure record.
I was speaking to an eminent obstetrician last night to prepare for the debate, however, and he said that techniques are improving rapidly. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has made the same point. In France, IVF treatments' take-home baby rate success factor—I do not know how the phrase goes in French, but it translates neatly into English—means that artificially replicating the number of treatments per cycle given to people going about these things in a more orthodox way gives a take-home baby rate similar to that achieved by natural process. That has clear implications, not only for what health authorities should do, but for what the Government should do.
The hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) and for Selly Oak were correct to say that if we are to produce criteria, they should be political. We cannot ask doctors to decide whether treatment for people who are not in a stable relationship, who have been in a relationship for only a year or who are not part of a heterosexual couple, is a clinical need. Such decisions must be taken by politicians, not by clinicians. Uncomfortable judgments will have to be made. Rationing is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, so in an age when resources are finite there will be inevitable difficulty about whether to put more money into cancer treatment or into fertility treatment.
Criteria should be laid down. I am not by nature a centrist, but it is difficult to envisage how that could be done other than centrally, by Her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members have talked about consistency of criteria and equality of access, but that cannot be provided locally. What criteria should be used? What is the relevance of age? Should the state fund techniques for women long past child-bearing age? What is the significance of the fact that couples may


have children? is there significance—I put it as neutrally as that—in a person seeking the reversal of an NHS vasectomy or sterilisation? What is the significance of a person being in a heterosexual relationship?
Polling evidence has been mentioned. The hon. Members for Selly Oak and for Slough talked about their incomprehension that the public could be so uncaring as to think that whether people have children is just one of those things. One opinion poll went the other way and said that 68 per cent. of people believed that IVF should be available on the NHS. I wonder whether they were asked how they would square that with other forms of treatment being unavailable.
The Government have to come to a decision. Had the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), been replying to the debate, he would have had a couple of phrases ready. He says that he does not want to be lectured by Conservative Members. I shall not lecture the Minister: that may be necessary on other occasions, but it is unnecessary today. I commend her on her written answer of 19 January, which summed up the inherent contradictions. She said:
We will challenge and address variations which are not based on the health needs and wishes of local people. We will aim for maximum consistency while still allowing appropriate local and individual responsiveness.
I do not want to be critical: I just want to share a problem with her. Are those two statements logically consistent? Can that be done?
I am delighted that the Minister is replying to the debate, because she is the ideal person to deal with this subject. The current weight of opinion is for the matter to be addressed centrally. In her written answer, she said:
We are currently considering what further advice the NHS should be given on infertility service provision." — [Official Report, 19 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 394.]
That advice must be generated centrally and measured against criteria that we can debate. We shall doubtless agree on some issues and disagree on others, but I should be delighted to hear what the hon. Lady has to say about the matter.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for securing this debate, and I commend the speeches that we have heard from both sides of the House on one of the most difficult issues facing the national health service. The concerns raised fall broadly into three areas.
First, it is important to tackle the present unacceptable geographical lottery in access to treatment by developing a coherent national framework that is predicated on fair access.
Secondly, we should ensure that the national health service has the capacity to keep pace with the rapid technological advances in fertility treatment. It is worth remembering that Louise Brown, the first test-tube baby, was born in 1978. I doubt whether any of us who can remember that time and the celebration that surrounded her birth would have predicted the innovations in

infertility treatment that have taken place in the intervening 20 years. We have every expectation that that pace of innovation and development will continue.
It is critical that new treatments, as they become available, are based on clear evidence of their proven effectiveness. Hardly an area of medicine and health care touches more raw nerves than treatment for infertility. That redoubles our obligation to ensure that the treatments that are available have been proved effective.
Thirdly, there is understandable concern about ethical issues. Medical technology is taking us into areas of great ethical uncertainty. I entirely agree with all those who have underlined the importance of ensuring that the ethical framework for protecting decency and the integrity of human rights are respected as we move fast to keep pace with new advances.
Those are the three strands of the case that has been developed in the debate. I shall briefly add to the good evidence that has been provided of the extent of the variation and inconsistencies in access to infertility services. The number of IVF treatments per 100,000 of the population varies. It ranges from just over 19 per 100,000 in the north-west region to 3.5 in the west midlands, with considerable variations in between. There are wide variations in the financial arrangements made by health authorities that provide IVF treatment. About 40 health authorities have specific contracts for IVF, but others offer the treatment within a block contract for general gynaecological services.
The upper age limit for women to have access to IVF also varies. In Scotland, the upper limit is 43, but it is as low as 34 in Leeds. We are determined to deal with the unacceptable variations in access to services, and to build a national health service that provides fair access to clinically effective services, including infertility services, where people live.
We shall redouble our efforts to tackle health inequality caused by uneven provision of services and the inequalities of those who suffer from poor health. That is central to our mission to rebuild the national health service. Tackling inconsistency is at the top of our list. The NHS White Paper is explicit in its commitment
to recognise that the NHS contribution must begin by offering fair access to health services in relation to people's needs, irrespective of geography, class, ethnicity, age or sex.
We intend to achieve that aim through the development of a national performance framework. We want to ensure national consistency through new service frameworks as a guarantee of quality and access for patients. We intend to establish a national institute for clinical excellence to ensure that services are based on the best evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness. We shall also review the arrangements for assessing the cost-effectiveness of new technologies, including drugs, and for encouraging their appropriate use. The new national arrangements will be linked to guidelines to inform local decision making. Equity will be at the heart of our policies.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) referred to my written answer. We are trying to provide a rational framework, but it will clearly take time. However, I can announce today that, as one of the first steps in tackling inequality in this area, we have commissioned the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to prepare clinical guidelines on the initial investigation and management of infertile couples in primary care services;


the management of infertility within local specialist services; and the provision of specialist and high-tech services. We expect the first two sets of clinical guidelines to be published in the summer and later this year, and the guidelines on specialist and high-tech services to be published in 1999. That will provide an important framework to deal with some of the inconsistencies in practice and the doubts about the clinical effectiveness of some of the current treatments.
I endorse the comments of hon. Members who expressed concern about the pressing demand for and the effectiveness of infertility treatment. The desire to have a baby at all costs, literally as well as figuratively, drives couples who may have had limited NHS treatment to spend enormous sums of money on private treatment, which is often not effective. A proper assessment would show that such treatment would never be effective in some cases. It is the stuff of heartbreak, and we want to provide a framework that provides some protection.
Let me deal briefly with four issues that underline the importance of an ethical framework. Ruth Deech, who chairs the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, is preparing a robust rebuttal of the article in The Sunday Times, which was grossly misleading, and, as the hon. Member for Meriden rightly said, disturbing. Let me reiterate our concern about cloning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must move to the next debate.

Affordable Housing (London)

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the lack of affordable housing in London. The debate is timely, as Londoners will have the opportunity to vote yes to a mayor and an assembly in tomorrow's referendum. I am sure that a yes vote will help to tackle many other pan-London problems.
The lack of affordable housing in the capital is widely recognised. My constituency straddles the boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham. Despite far-sighted schemes in those boroughs, there is still a chronic lack of affordable social housing. According to the Association of London Government, about 75,000 households in London suffer from overcrowding. The housing that does exist is too expensive, and Shelter calculates that average council rents in London are 32 per cent. higher than the average for England. Not surprisingly, the private rented market has not provided a solution. Private sector rents are more than twice as high in London as in England as a whole.
The future does not look bright. The London Research Centre has estimated that accommodation for 26,000 extra households will be needed in London between 1991 and 2011, but only about 16,000 units are likely to be built. In short, the supply of all housing, particularly affordable housing, in London falls far below demand.
Let me list the major obstacles to affordable housing in London. First, there is the cost of land in London. Property developers currently consider east London a gold mine. Not only are house prices rising rapidly, but the price of land that has not already been built on is rising equally fast. Alas, the new developments are not, by and large, social housing. The phenomenon of luxury apartments and exclusive developments has become common to east Londoners.
Our election pledge to ensure a phased release of housing receipts will, of course, make a difference, but it is by no means the whole answer. Estate renewal challenge fund money has made a valuable difference in my constituency, and Tower Hamlets has developed HARCA—the Housing and Regeneration Community Association—as a stand-alone housing company. I know that the Minister for London and Construction is more than familiar with that concept, as he is widely credited with promoting such schemes throughout the United Kingdom. Tenant involvement, money for community activities and extra investment in housing stock are all welcome.
The recent statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on developments on brown-field sites was also welcome. However, many of those sites are heavily polluted. Locke's wharf, on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency, is a prime example. If such sites are to be developed safely, the cost of development will inevitably be raised.
There are those who say that the Government cannot, or even should not, try to intervene. I do not believe that to be just or right. An estimated 45,000 people are homeless in London, living in hostels, squats, bed-and-breakfast accommodation and short-term accommodation. That is in addition to the scandal that about 1,000 people sleep rough on the streets.


For many, social housing can be the first step on the ladder to employment. It takes people off the streets, and gives them an address so that they can apply for jobs. It would be wrong in a debate such as this not to mention The Big Issue, and not to commend all those involved—especially the vendors—for their work with and for the homeless.
For people with children, social housing provides stability. It gives children a chance to attend school regularly, and provides them with somewhere to do their homework. If we are serious about tackling social exclusion, we must be serious about tackling the lack of affordable housing in London.
As well as housing provided by the local authorities and HARCA in Tower Hamlets and Newham, there are co-operatives and housing associations which are trying to meet needs, but failing because we have a chronic problem. At the end of 1997, in Tower Hamlets alone, 2,868 families were on the borough's waiting list for properties with four or more bedrooms. Of those, 212 had urgent medical priority, 250 had medical priority A, nearly 230 had priority B and more than 200 had priority C. However, the council has only about 120 such properties a year. Teenage girls have to share rooms, and sometimes beds, with their fathers and older brothers. At the end of the 20th century, in the capital of the United Kingdom, that is intolerable.
The Association of London Government has calculated that 100,000 additional affordable family homes are needed to meet the current shortfall in the capital. There are many exciting initiatives, such as the Solartown and Silvertown project, which is promoted by Greenpeace and the Peabody trust. That landmark project has doubled the number of solar-powered homes in Britain, and it is the first solar housing project in London. However, although Solartown is worthy, and should be copied, the problem will not be solved by such small projects. We need a national drive to ensure that the homes that our people need are built, and provided at a cost that people can afford.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has a special interest and expertise in housing, which he has developed over many years. He commands great respect from housing professionals, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say on the issues that I have raised.

Ms Karen Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the Minister for allowing me some time in this debate. I am keen to speak on the principle that affordable housing is one of the central strands in a strategy to tackle social exclusion. Given that we are right to tackle the "ghettoising" of poor families on the worst estates, we must also deal with the distribution of low-cost housing in all parts of the city. There can be no no-go areas for low-income families.
We shall not have the opportunity today to deal in depth with several practicalities, although my hon. Friend has touched on some. To create an effective strategy for affordable housing would mean bringing together the issues of planning, housing finance, housing benefit and

parking, along with many others. I hope that we shall have another opportunity to consider some of them in more detail.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that much could be done by way of section 106 agreements when private developers apply for planning permission? For example, my local authority—Barnet—has negotiated for 17 of the 60 homes being built by John Laing in the Page street development in my constituency to be rented through the Paddington Churches housing association. Is that the sort of thing that my hon. Friend has in mind when she mentions planning?

Ms Buck: I entirely agree, and my hon. Friend is right to commend his local authority. I shall a mention a couple of similar issues later.
Before I reach the core of what I want to say in the few minutes available, I want to pay two quick tributes. First, the London Pride partnership produced an excellent report earlier this year on affordable housing in London. It set out several of the issues with which government, the local authorities and the London assembly and mayor—for which we hope to win approval tomorrow—must deal. I also pay tribute to CHICL—Communities and Homes in Central London. I was fortunate enough to address its annual general meeting a couple of weeks ago. It has a proud record of campaigning with and for residents' organisations throughout central London in the face of the development pressures that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town has talked about.
I, CHICL and many other organisations are proud of, and welcome, the Government's early support for affordable housing through both the release of capital receipts, which has made a welcome contribution to affordable housing development, and the recent issue of circular 6/98, which underpins the emphasis on brown-field sites for housing development by stressing local authorities' opportunities to negotiate affordable housing in developments. However, there are many formidable problems in achieving the outcomes that circular 6/98 rightly emphasises.
My hon. Friend mentioned the pressure on land prices. That is a problem throughout London. He rightly drew attention to east London, but in central London the problem is absolutely critical. It is being exacerbated daily by London's importance as a global city, with international and corporate money flooding into the centre of London, squeezing out private tenure in particular and putting great pressure on private housing development for purchase.
At the CHICL AGM, I was interested to hear from a leading property consultant that the average house price for purchase in central London is now £370,000, which makes a mockery of the ability of people on lower incomes to purchase, but the most important reason for welcoming today's debate is a local one. The constituency that I represent, which spans part of Westminster and of Kensington, is at the sharp end of the pressure on home prices and of much housing need.
Westminster, on which I shall concentrate, commissioned a housing needs study last year, which showed that 12,095 households, or 12.5 per cent. of the total population, were living in unsuitable housing. Of those, 3,320 people were in priority need. Over half of


the households—54 per cent. —earned less than £10,000 a year. Only just over 10 per cent. would be able to access property on market rents.
I know from my case load—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whom I am pleased to see here, will know this from his—just how intense is the pressure on housing need. Despite that pressure—some would say because of it—Westminster council has, over the past decade, been embroiled in political controversy over affordable housing. The homes-for-votes scandal, which ended in the High Court before Christmas, was about affordable homes: who gets what and who goes where.

Mr. Dismore: May I suggest that my hon. Friend contrasts Westminster council's record in failing to provide affordable housing with my local authority of Barnet, which is under Labour control and which, in Mill Hill, negotiated two years ago, with the Ministry of Defence and Notting Hill housing trust, the purchase of 96 homes for rent? The council has just completed a further deal with Annington Homes in the same estate, which is ex-MOD property, for a further 48 homes, which are now empty and available for rent. Is that not a much better contrast: Labour providing affordable homes and Conservatives failing to do so?

Ms Buck: Again, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I shall drive that contrast home in the couple of minutes remaining to me.
City hall has learnt little from either last year's change of Government or the homes-for-votes ruling in the High Court. Current thinking continues to undermine attempts to secure a proper mix of affordable housing throughout the city. I have two concerns that I wish quickly to flag up: who benefits from affordable housing, or the definition of affordability, and where the affordable housing goes.
On who benefits, the council continues to undermine the desperate need for affordable housing, which is confirmed by its own study, by debating whether affordable housing provision should be accessible to households on incomes of between £29,000 and £50,000 per year as opposed to low-income households—the 54 per cent. who have an income of less than £10,000 a year—and how much priority should be given to the needs of local residents over the needs of commuters.
The second issue relates to the provision of homes on site in developments versus the acceptance of commutable sums. I welcome the new circular's emphasis on on-site provision, but, in practice, I am deeply concerned about what is going on, especially given the council's record over the past decade. In the past couple of years, the council has built up a fund of more than £3 million in commutable sums, mostly from developments in the south and centre of the city: Westminster hospital, ITN house in the west end and Beynards house in Bayswater are just three examples.
Meanwhile, affordable housing is being concentrated increasingly in deprived and highly pressurised wards in the north of the city: for example, there are 1,000 bed spaces of housing association property in north Paddington and off the Harrow road. An excellent contrast is drawn by the case of Clarendon court, of which I know the Minister is aware. That contained homes in multiple

occupation. I was actively involved in the matter a couple of years ago. It was a cockroach-infested slum which was home to more than 200 people, with fewer than six kitchens available to them. It was located in a marginal ward in Westminster.
I was pleased that that HMO was closed and that people were relocated from it, but the development under consideration is to convert that building into 100 executive homes with on-site parking. It is no surprise that it is in a marginal ward, or that the council is considering accepting a commutable sum for the Clarendon court development, which will be spent again, I expect, in deprived and pressured wards in the north, which are already highly over-concentrated with council and housing association property.
Worse still, in terms of scale, are the plans for the development of the Paddington basin and goods yard. The council is in danger of sacrificing the best opportunity this decade to secure a decent proportion of affordable housing in that part of central London. Last week, Westminster's town planning sub-committee gave outline, "in principle" approval to schemes that contain no on-site provision and a commutable sum that is £1 million less than is consistent even with the council's guidelines. Paddington Basins Development Ltd., with Rialto Homes Ltd. and Frogmore Estates, have been given the thumbs up to a scheme that enables them to avoid any on-site housing in the first phase of the development, in exchange for an unenforceable statement of intent about the provision of affordable housing in stage 2.
Even in the event of that going ahead, the scale of provision is wholly inadequate for what is needed. Incidentally, many other concerns about the development of the Paddington special policy area, which runs along the southern border of my constituency, are increasingly being voiced by individuals and community groups in my constituency, ranging from design, to density to car-parking provision, to which we will have to return.
Frankly, for Westminster city council to be making decisions on affordable housing provision in the week that circular 6/98 was published shows little more than contempt for the Government's position on affordable housing. I know that the Minister can say nothing about the specifics of the case this morning, but I wanted the opportunity to put on the record the grave concerns that I, some of my colleagues in Westminster, and resident and community organisations in the north of the borough have about the potential loss of opportunity for affordable housing, even though the developments that I have spoken about provide many opportunities.
I should welcome it if the Minister took this opportunity to drive home the Government's message on the need for local authorities to secure the full proportion of affordable housing and to stress the importance of on-site provision, wherever possible. If we do not manage to achieve that or a balance throughout the range of housing provision, the worst estates, the ghettos of the poor, will continue to face on the other side of the road the gated communities of the rich. We shall all pay the price for that.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town


(Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate on the important subject of affordable housing in London. He made a powerful speech, highlighting the scale and range of problems and I thank him for his kind remarks about my involvement in the subject. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town, has taken a keen interest in housing in the year since she was elected to represent her constituents. Both have done a real service by highlighting the scale of housing problems that still afflict too many people in our capital city. I welcome the fact that many other hon. Members, in particular several of my hon. Friends, have come to show their concern.
Housing in London has very special characteristics that mark it out from housing in the rest of the country. London contains 16 of the 22 most deprived local authorities in England and has two thirds of the most deprived housing estates. Furthermore, over one third of England's stock of flats and maisonettes is in London. London also accounts for over 40 per cent. of England's high-rise housing—which is housing of 10 storeys or more. If medium-rise properties—housing with more than four storeys—are included, the figure rises to over 60 per cent. London has the largest social rented sector of any of the English regions, and 18 per cent. of all those in England who live in the local authority sector live in London.
The Government have a key role to play in helping to meet London's housing needs. We invest heavily in the social rented sector through the housing investment programme—which this year will provide £162 million for local authorities, with a further £33 million to be invested in private sector renewal. Additionally, the Housing Corporation invests £307 million in the housing association sector through the approved development programme. Taken together, investment this year involves a total of about £0.5 billion.
The Government realise that that investment is not nearly enough to address the backlog of repairs and maintenance that has accrued over the past 18 years, which London local authorities estimate to be £5 billion, mostly in inner London.

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is specifically addressing housing issues in inner London. Is there not also a substantial problem in providing affordable housing in outer London constituencies, such as mine and that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)? Is not one option in dealing with the problem to form partnerships—such as that in Claremont road, in Barnet, where the local authority, working with Fairview builders and the Network housing association, has produced a mixed development providing 110 affordable rental housing units, a nursing home and a community centre?

Mr. Raynsford: I take entirely on board my hon. Friend's comments on the extent of housing needs in areas of outer London, such as Barnet, where he has been working assiduously to tackle those needs, to help his constituents secure better housing.
Last year, faced with those problems in London, the Government acted quickly to implement our manifesto commitment to provide additional resources for housing

and housing-related regeneration under the capital receipts initiative. In this financial year, London authorities will receive £167 million through the capital receipts initiative. We realised that many of the local authorities with the greatest need to invest in their housing stock had relatively low levels of receipts set aside. We therefore established a system to redistribute receipts as credit approvals to authorities—using as a basis two thirds of need, and one third of historic receipts set aside from, for example, right-to-buy sales.
The inner London boroughs—those traditionally with the greatest need, but with relatively small receipts—gain considerably from that system. Inner London accounts for about 6 per cent. of the country's housing, but, this year, is receiving about 17 per cent. of the national allocation of capital receipts.
We expect individual local authorities to identify their own local priorities in applying extra spending power. However, many London authorities—once they have dealt with their immediate need to spend on their own stock—will turn their attention to new social housing provision by working in partnership with registered social landlords. This year, London authorities expect to spend about 18 per cent. of the available resources from capital receipts on such provision.
I have mentioned the need for improvement in the private sector, where many people live in poor conditions. Many elderly people—of whom there are a large number in outer London areas, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) —live in houses that they own outright, but do not have the means to maintain them. A grant under part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 towards the cost of repairs, improvements or adaptations to their home may enable such elderly people to stay in their home.
Discretionary house renovation grants may be given for major repairs or improvements, and disabled facilities grants for adaptations may enable disabled people to continue living in their homes. Home repair assistance may be given for more minor works of repair or improvement. All those grants can help to solve housing problems.
Housing must not be considered in isolation. Housing issues are closely interwoven with the other social issues of our day—such as welfare dependency, unemployment, poor education and crime. It is a matter not only of providing a roof over people's heads, but of working in an holistic manner to ensure that we find effective solutions to a range of problems. Housing is an integral part of the Government's broader agenda in tackling disadvantage and giving people a decent quality of life. It is about building community pride, by giving people opportunities and some influence and control over their daily lives.
Our housing agenda lies behind the Prime Minister's decision to establish a special unit in the Cabinet Office to secure concerted Government action to tackle social exclusion. It is no coincidence that one of the unit's top priorities is to deal with the problem of housing estates suffering from multiple deprivation and problems including crime, drug abuse, unemployment, community breakdown, poor schooling, low expectations and low attainment levels. The unit is due shortly to report on those issues and on rough sleeping—which is another issue of particular concern to London.


London has more than its fair share of housing problems, but it also has a wealth of experience in promoting anti-exclusion schemes through a range of programmes, including the single regeneration budget. We are pooling the knowledge, experience and ideas of those involved to provide a strong London input to the work of the social exclusion unit, which I hope will make an effective and lasting input in dealing with the problems of social exclusion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, planning policies have a significant role to play in housing. The Government's current policy on planning and affordable housing encourages private builders to help meet affordable housing requirements by providing a mix of housing types in their proposals. Planning policy guidance note 3 encourages local planning authorities to seek an element of affordable housing in significant new housing developments.
We have recently issued circular 6/98, to replace circular 13/96 and to clarify how the delivery of affordable housing may be assisted through negotiation with developers. The main change introduced in the circular lowers the size thresholds above which local planning authorities may seek the inclusion of affordable housing. Those have generally been lowered from 40 dwellings and 1.5 hectare to 25 dwellings and I hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings. In inner London, the size thresholds have been reduced from 25 dwellings and 1 hectare to 15 dwellings and 0.5 of a hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings.
The revised arrangements also provide, in exceptional circumstances, for local authorities in outer London to seek to adopt a lower threshold, through the local planning process. The arrangements will help further to increase the supply of affordable housing delivered through planning policy.
The circular is intended to provide a clearer framework and to help local authorities adopt more realistic and consistent approaches in preparing planning policies and handling applications involving affordable housing. It is also intended to encourage a more co-operative approach in preparing planning policies, to ensure that the views of all those involved in housing delivery—including providers and enablers—are taken into account.
When a local planning authority is able to demonstrate a lack of affordable housing, based on a robust assessment of local housing needs, it is advised to include a policy in the plan for seeking affordable housing. Such policies should define what the authority considers to be affordable, having regard to local income levels and house prices. I specifically note the comments on local income levels and house prices in Westminster made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North.
The assessment of need should also provide the justification for local authorities to estimate a specified proportion of affordable housing for suitable sites that

might become available. Such an approach will more accurately establish the amount of affordable homes needed, and enable housing and planning policies to focus on the particular problems and opportunities in a local area.
Therefore, where there is evidence of need for affordable housing within a London borough, we expect the local authority to seek the inclusion of affordable housing in all new housing proposals on suitable sites above the size threshold.
By providing a clearer framework for planning policies, circular 6/98 will facilitate speedier and more effective negotiations and decisions on planning applications involving affordable housing. However, both local planning authorities and developers will have to be more flexible in decisions on affordable housing provision. The message we are receiving from developers is that they are willing to negotiate with planning authorities, provided that they have in place policies that clearly show the way in which the authority intends to implement affordable housing policy. Those policies should also be consistent with the Government's advice.
The Government wish to optimise the contribution that the planning system can make to the overall supply of affordable housing. We wish also to ensure that there is certainty in the planning process, and that the overall supply of housing is not unduly hindered. Those objectives are especially important given the need to accommodate increasing numbers of new households, and to maximise the use of recycled land—brown-field sites—and existing buildings for that purpose. We must therefore ensure that affordable housing policies are consistent with guidance, consistently applied. I consider that our planning policy will help to optimise the contribution that the planning system can make to the overall supply of affordable housing in London.
The future of housing provision and housing finance is currently being considered in our housing comprehensive spending review, which is being conducted jointly by my Department and the Department of Social Security. Our principal objective is that everyone should have the opportunity to have a decent home. We are reviewing all housing programmes to ensure that they help us meet that objective.
The review is considering all housing programmes from first principles, and asking what they achieve and whether they are efficient and effective. We have received contributions from a wide range of housing organisations, and we are consulting on the best way to implement proposals arising from the review. All views are being taken into account as the review is carried forward. Conclusions from the review will be announced in the summer as part of our general spending plans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must now move on to the
debate on the Territorial Army.

Territorial Army

1 pm

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject. It is a measure of its importance that it is only a month since my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raised the same subject on the Floor of the House. The attendance today of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), for Canterbury, for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)—also testifies to its importance.
People may well ask why it is necessary to raise the subject so soon after the previous debate. There are various reasons, not least the fact that certain parts of the response by the Minister for the Armed Forces to the last debate—I say this will all due respect to the Minister, and acknowledge that he cannot, of course, prejudge the outcome of the strategic defence review—raised more questions than they answered. Therefore, I want to raise again some crucial points matters affecting the Territorial Army.
It is estimated that, over the past decade, some 750,000 people have, in one way or another, passed through the Territorial Army and received TA training. The TA's present strength is 55,000, and there are 35 infantry battalions. The signals coming from the strategic defence review are that it is principally the infantry battalions that are under threat, which could affect as many as 20,000 members of the TA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury previously gave a very eloquent explanation of the TA's wide-ranging role. The TA has a very obvious military role, in that it gives us a consistent base of basic military knowledge that can be called on in times of national emergency. We should remember that there are even now TA members in the Falklands, and that we called on them considerably during the hostilities in the Gulf. I am sure that the House remembers Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes, a former distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament who served in the House when the Conservatives were in government, and who went to the Gulf as a reservist. We have had up to 1,500 people reservists in Bosnia, among whom the TA is still playing a major role. So the TA has a military role—it is not simply a cosy organisation that might be needed at some stage, but is already very actively employed.
The TA has other subsidiary. although still important, roles—not least that of training civilians. At my branch of the TA, which is part of an extremely proud and long-serving regiment—the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment—I met Private Parker, a young woman who had been unemployed. She trained as a chef in the TA, and is about to go on to serve in the Regular Army for six months. She will then be able to take up civilian employment, having gained a range of qualifications that she did not have before she joined the TA.
The TA has a role in the welfare-to-work initiative, and, of course, uses and employs students who find that the TA offers a financial as well as a character-building advantage. It therefore has several subsidiary civilian roles in addition to its obvious military one.
The TA also employs a vast range of people. In our local TA branch, there are chartered surveyors and doctors as well as unemployed 17-year-olds, brought together and learning from one another. I therefore do not think that I have to persuade anyone of the value of the TA, but we have to ask whether, given the sterling work it does, it is really sensible to reduce its strength substantially in order to promote greater numbers in the Regular Army. There is a failure of logic in such a proposal.
The Regular Army is already about 5,000 under strength. In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that it should not be, that there should not be such gaps, and that we should not use the TA to plug those gaps. However, the gaps exist, and it does not seem sensible—if the Minister wants to dispute this, he can do so when he replies—to increase the gap by creating a greater requirement for the Regular Army, which is not up to strength now, and taking away from the TA, much of which is fully up to strength.
The Minister will doubtless say that last year was a wonderful year for recruitment for the regulars, and that we recruited 97 per cent. of our target, but if there are already gaps, we need to recruit more than 100 per cent. to make any impression at all. If we recruit less than the target, we are simply augmenting the gap. Any gap is regrettable, and it can be dealt with, but the way to do so is not by cutting wholesale into the territorials.
If we cut the number of TA centres and start reducing the number of TA battalions, people will not travel miles and miles to join the TA. The TA operates essentially at a local level, and people will not travel all that far if their local centre disappears.
I deal now with an issue to which the Minister failed to respond adequately in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. The role of the cadet forces had, quite rightly, been mentioned, but the Minister said:
I do not understand how the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) has gained the impression that we are in any way diminishing the role of the cadets—we have supported them."—[Official Report, 8 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 315.]
That is very odd, because the cadets use TA centres. The army cadet force is based on local centres that the TA provides.
If we cut huge numbers of TA battalions and greatly reduce its strength, it follows, as night follows day, that the TA centres will disappear. If they do, the army cadet force is simply not going to be able to function as it does at the moment. The latest figures suggest, so the Army tells me, that 30 per cent. of recruits have cadet experience, so the cadet force clearly has a major role to play in supplying and backing up the Regular Army.
My local battalion is an infantry battalion. No army can function without a capable infantry. I know that we are in the age of high technology, but no matter how much ground is won, the infantry are required to hold it. In army tactics, if a steady progression is being made into enemy territory, all sorts of technology can be used to win the ground—ranging from tanks to the most modern missiles—but there is no substitute for the infantry when it comes to holding the ground. Therefore, if the TA is to be cut, it seems rather odd that the infantry is under threat.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Our most recent conflicts in the Gulf and the Falklands were fought over


open terrain. Given that open terrain is diminishing throughout the world, if a high-intensity war is fought in a built-up, mountainous or wooded area—to name but three more difficult categories—the need for more infantry becomes even more paramount.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The two conflicts demonstrate the point that I was trying to make, and give force to his argument.
My local battalion is fully up to strength, which is more than can be said for many of the regulars. It stands at 503, and has a turnover of about 25 per cent. a year. Therefore, in any given year, 125 people are entering and leaving. Of course, those who leave do so with training and knowledge that they did not have when they joined, and that might be a future resource for the country. The battalion covers Kent, Sussex and east Surrey—although it is not the only battalion operating in those parts—and it has a Victoria Cross to its credit. We should remember that.
During the previous debate on the TA, the Minister made a rather odd comment. He said:
We did not undertake the strategic defence review to create a monument to the past, but to create effective fighting capability for the future.
He also said that the reserve
is predicated on home defence".—[Official Report, 8 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 316-17.]
The presence of a VC—the highest honour in active service—should show that there is rather more to the territorials than simply looking after home defence and plugging a few gaps.
I know that there is huge concern in my local battalion, which is not confined to the commanding officers and senior ranks, but is felt right down to the newest recruit. I visited my local TA centre only a couple of weeks ago, and every person I spoke to, from the 17-year-olds to those with many years' service, asked the same questions: "Why are the Government undervaluing us? Why are we under threat? Don't the Government understand the role we play?"
If the Regular Army were at full strength and it were necessary to expand it, and if there were severe gaps in the TA, the signals we are getting about the proposals might make a bit more sense, although they would not make complete sense. However, as the reverse is true, the current approach is misguided, and the purpose of today's debate is exactly the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and all the representations from many hon. Members. It is to try to say to the Minister, before it is too late and before any final decisions are taken: please think again in respect of the Territorial Army.

The Minister for the Armed Forces: (Dr. John Reid): First, I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for her concern to save me. I deeply appreciate that, and the efforts that she has put into the debate. Today is a significant day, because we have yet another debate on the Territorial Army and because the right hon. Lady has shown us that she remains

in training for a return to the Front Bench. It is also my mother's birthday. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing her all the best on her 79th birthday.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister convey my wishes to his mother for a very happy birthday? I am sure that all hon. Members join me in that.

Dr. Reid: I am most grateful. No doubt that will counter-balance the animosity that my mother feels towards anyone who even mildly criticises me, but I shall explain that the right hon. Lady was doing so in her normal constructive fashion, and is a doughty fighter for her constituents.
The right hon. Lady's remarks were motivated by a concern for the Territorial Army and for genuine defence reasons, and I do not dispute that for a moment. She made a well-informed speech, and I shall address a number of points that she has raised. I shall be less generous than I have been in the previous two debates on the issue, as I am sometimes criticised for not providing answers. Part of the reason is that, every time I give an answer, an hon. Member wishes to dispute what I say, so I cannot address every point. I shall try to address some of the points that have been raised today.
First, it is worth restating, and reminding hon. Members, that the process in which we are engaged has been a uniquely open one. By Ministry of Defence standards, it has been unprecedented in the way in which we have debated and consulted on the issues throughout. This is the second Adjournment debate, and probably the third debate, in which the Territorial Army has featured. The subject has also been raised in seminars and panel discussions, and in written submissions. It seems that a phalanx of TA people is following me to every dinner and discussion that I attend throughout the country to raise various matters with me.
Secondly, it has not been an exercise to find savings, although we have to be realistic about what we can afford. Nor has it been an attempt to protect any one part of the armed forces at the expense of another. Let me say in all courtesy to Opposition Members that there sometimes seems to be a theme running through the legitimate task of protecting the TA that manifests itself as antagonism towards the Regular Army. The Regular Army does not have the public capacity to argue, lobby, publicise and write to Members of Parliament in the same way as the TA does, so I advise Opposition Members to be cautious about turning public opportunities to defend the TA into antagonism towards the regulars, who do not feel that that is a fair representation of the position. 
Thirdly, we should try wherever possible to get rid of hypocrisy on these matters. The right hon. Lady spoke with great strength and passion, but she was also a member of a Government who cut the TA by 30,000. Today, she is discussing the possibility of a cut of half that number, and that is speculation. That puts the issue in proportion. If the right hon. Lady felt that it was legitimate in defence of the country to cut the TA by 30,000, she has at least an obligation to accept that, and the fact that numbers are not the only consideration.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Reid: I am trying to reply to questions that have been raised, against an earlier complaint that I was not providing answers.


On targets, it is incorrect of the right hon. Lady to say that, if we reach 100 per cent. of our targets, we will not reduce the shortfall. I am sorry, but that is wrong. The targets take account of the shortfall, and we need to get rid of it.
There is a dreadful shortfall in the armed forces, which we inherited from the previous Government. The anticipated target that I inherited in respect of the Army was between 5,500 and 7,500. I can tell the right hon. Lady that the current figure is not 7,500 or even 5,500. We are reducing the shortfall. I anticipate that this year the figure will be significantly beneath 5,000. There is a long way to go, but I fully intend to make sure that the TA is not viewed as a stop-gap for deficiencies inherited from the previous Government, but stands in its own right as a modern and usable force.

Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Dr. Reid: No. I shall make progress. If I have time at the end of my speech, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
Of course we shall take account of the footprint of the Territorial Army throughout the country, and the cadet force will be one of the elements we shall consider. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald should not proclaim publicly that we are cutting resources to the cadets. When the review is concluded, she may find that she is wrong about that as well.
A package of proposals has been put to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. They cover the full range of defence issues: the structure of the regular forces, strategic lift, logistics and medical support, to name but a few. Among those are proposals for the reserves. Taken together, the proposals point towards conclusions that are coherent as a whole, and will give us the flexible and robust forces we need to discharge our policy objectives.
We shall now decide collectively on the final outcome of the review. Rumour and speculation, I understand, are inevitable at this stage, but no final decision has been taken. However, I am confident that the outcome will be good for the armed forces, the reserves and the nation.
I want to talk about what we shall seek to achieve with the reserves. First, we need a Territorial Army that is relevant to today's strategic environment. It must be structured for all the roles and tasks that we can plausibly foresee. The right hon. Lady rightly pointed out that the role of the TA did not relate wholly to home defence or reinforcement in the event of a conventional war against Russia. No one is speculating about getting rid of the TA. However, she must recognise that a significant aspect of the Territorial Army's traditional role over the past decades was predicated on an imminent Soviet Union attack on Europe or the United Kingdom. That was a significant element in the configuration of the TA.

Mr. Brazier: And of the regular forces.

Dr. Reid: And of the regular forces, which is precisely why we are changing the regular forces. I say to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is today the aide-de-camp to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and

The Weald, and, in his own right, a robust defender of the TA, that, if we modernise the regular forces in all three services, the TA must be modernised.
However pessimistic we may be, none of us expects to wake up tomorrow to the threat of an imminent drop of spetznaz troops on the UK mainland. We must examine the TA's traditional role and consider how we can update it. The previous Government, of which the right hon. Lady was a member, started to change the Territorial Army's role, and that process is continuing and being updated.
I know that the right hon. Lady is a strong supporter of the Territorial Army, and I point out to her that to leave any part of the TA languishing in an outdated cold war role while modernising the rest of the services would do it no service, and would render it irrelevant, subject to criticism and unusable in the future.
Our review has shown that there is a particular need for certain elements that have been mentioned in debates on the TA: signallers, drivers, artillery men and women, military police, intelligence and survey teams. Those are specialists. We need Territorial Army soldiers who can repair battle-damaged vehicles, operate sophisticated military equipment such as the multiple-launch rocket system, deal with local civilian populations, and engage in a wide range of specialist and core military tasks.
It does the TA no service continually to diminish its range of capabilities with the speculative scare stories that we sometimes hear during debates such as this. I expect that the review will conclude that we need many more medical reserves. The review of the whole force configuration shows that there are serious weaknesses in the medical force.
Secondly, we need a Territorial Army that is usable. Achieving that would do the TA a service in future commensurate with what it has done in the past.
A clear, and perhaps not surprising, conclusion of our foreign policy-led analysis is that speed of deployment in an international crisis is important. Reserves are often a cost-effective source of military capability, but they take longer to get ready than regulars. That is particularly true in the case of front-line infantry and armour roles, which demand a great deal of all-arms training.
There are roles for which we can expect to call on reserves at short notice. Some units and individuals must be capable of being deployed on operations with little warning. At present, almost all the Territorial Army is held at low readiness against the remote possibility of a major attack on NATO. That must change. One way in which the TA must change is that, in the event of a major crisis—

Mr. Brazier: It could be a matter of months.

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman should listen, because I am attempting to make points that should perhaps have been considered by Conservative Members, and make progress on the points made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
One way in which the TA must change is that, in the event of a major crisis, we must be prepared to call out reserves compulsorily and in their thousands if we are fully to exploit the military potential of the TA and other reserves. We ought to consider how we will engender that cultural change, which will enhance the TA's position within our overall force structures.


If we are to give practical effect to past rhetoric, we must also improve the mobilisation procedures for the TA, whether for major operations or for individuals volunteering to reinforce the Regular Army on current operations. We need to improve our administrative methods so that they are not ad hoc, and provide a dedicated system of mobilisation for the TA, so that it can be used in its desired roles.
Thirdly, we envisage that the Army we deploy in future operations will be one integrated force, part regular and part— a substantial part— reserves. It would include terries in a wide range of skilled roles, some as individuals working with regulars, many in Territorial Army units. We would be unable to fight a war at any serious level without them. I give testimony today to our gratitude to the TA in the past and to our continuing commitment that it will be usable and relevant in future.
We will need a substantial Territorial Army, which is capable in crisis of reinforcing our armed forces in many areas where we should not try to maintain a full regular capability in peace time. The TA must be shaped to roles that will be relevant to our strategic aims. It must be usable in pursuit of those aims— ready when needed, willing when called out. A relevant and usable Territorial Army, closely integrated with all other armed forces within the United Kingdom defence configuration, is a modern TA, and right for the service of a modern Britain.

Mr. Gill: The Minister is aware of Conservative Members' great concern about the prospective numbers of the Territorial Army. Does he acknowledge that, if one reduces the size of any organisation below a certain critical mass, it ceases to be viable and sustainable?

Dr. Reid: Of course I accept that there is a level of critical mass, but that level may be debated. One can increase the effectiveness, capability, usability and relevance of our armed forces while reducing their size. If that is not the case, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he supported a reduction of 32 per cent. in

the military personnel of the forces under the previous Government? They made that reduction because they thought that it made the forces more usable and more professional in the modern context.
After nine months of a strategic defence debate, Conservative Members' only criticisms have been about size, which is one aspect of one role of one of the reserve forces out of the whole force configuration. If size were the only issue, we would never have given up conscription. We now have a better and more capable Army than we have ever had, but it is much smaller.

Mr. Brazier: The Minister has singled out infantry and armour as the only two roles that he does not think are particularly appropriate for the Territorial Army. Will he explain why the most exhaustive trials that America has ever carried out on its armoured infantry forces— in 1992— show that its reserve armoured infantry was only three weeks behind its regulars in readiness?

Dr. Reid: I am not going to discuss the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, because his premise is wrong. I did not say that there was no role for infantry or armour in the Territorial Army. I said that its traditional role was the defence of the United Kingdom and reinforcement in a conventional war against Russia, which none of us thinks is imminent. Therefore, we must rethink the size and roles of that element. I am trying to create a Territorial Army that, in practice, is relevant, usable, integrated and more professional in future. That does not merely concern size.
I stand second to no one in my respect for the individuals who make up the Territorial Army and who have contributed so much to this country. We will not preserve their future by maintaining them constantly in their past configuration. It is our role to give them a future as well as a proud past—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down when I am on my feet. We move to the next debate.

Water Fluoridation

Mr. David Lock: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity that this debate provides to speak about the important subject of fluoridation in water.
None of us likes going to the dentist. The shrill whining of the dentist's drill causes most of us to feel our shoulder blades coming together as we are reduced to a state of quivering submissiveness. Despite many strides that have been made in recent years, a visit to the dentist is even more frightening for children than for adults.
However unpleasant a visit to the dentist may be, I hope that everyone accepts that dentists should be a vital part of our national health service. Living with poor dental health for years is infinitely worse than the pain of a visit to the dentist. Years of unnecessary toothache, having tooth after tooth removed and replaced by dentures at an early age, is a reality for far too many people in Britain today. However, in many parts of the country there are no NHS dentists. The systematic removal of dentistry from the NHS may not have been the previous Government's intention, but their policies had that effect. Despite being warned about those effects, they took no steps to promote NHS dentistry. Poor dental health for our children is the result.
Poor dental health is also the result of poor diet and poor oral hygiene and is symptomatic of poor education. We have known for many years that illnesses disproportionately affect our poorest citizens. That was conclusively shown by the Black report that was published—or, rather, not published— as long ago as 1979. Heart disease, cancer and mental health all strike hardest on our most vulnerable citizens. It should therefore be no surprise to find that tooth decay is no exception.
This is an appropriate time to raise such issues because in February the Government published the highly acclaimed Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", which rightly raises the issues of health inequality, including those of dental health. The Green Paper recognises that the single most effective step that can be taken to improve the dental health of our poorest citizens is to fluoridate water to an optimum level of one part per million.
Fluoridation is strongly approved by the British Dental Association, which is to be commended for promoting better public health above the financial interests of its members. Fluoridation means fewer fillings, fewer extractions and thus fewer painful visits to the dentist. It also means a cut in the money that the NHS spends on dentists. I wryly reflect that the public health arguments for fluoridation must be compelling for the BDA— and others— to press for a measure that is so much against its members' financial interest.
The arguments for water fluoridation are strong. I shall illustrate that by using my constituency as an example. Kidderminster does not have— and has never had— the benefit of fluoridated water. The adjacent Worcestershire towns of Bromsgrove and Redditch were part of the old Birmingham system and are fluoridated. Differences in dental health between the two areas are startling. There is about 2.5 times as much tooth decay in children in Kidderminster as in Bromsgrove and Redditch, despite the fact that Kidderminster has a better Jarman score— the

accepted indicator of social deprivation— of minus 16.8, in comparison with minus 21.6 for Bromsgrove and Redditch. The effects of greater social deprivation have, in dental health, been more than outweighed by the simple expedient of putting minute traces of fluoride in drinking water.
The effects are not confined to children. Adults' teeth are worse in Kidderminster than in the neighbouring towns, with a 37 per cent. higher rate of dental extractions compared with fluoridated areas. Those figures have been validated by a comprehensive study in Anglesey, which confirmed the long-lasting benefits of fluoride for children and adults. It is also clear from academic work that such benefits accrue most to those in the worst economic circumstances. Proper levels of fluoride in drinking water are a simple and effective way of achieving equity in dental health across Britain.

Mr. John Butterfill: There may be other medical conditions that could be improved by the adding of medicine to the water supply. Does the hon. Gentleman support those as well?

Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman's point is— I am afraid— confused because it assumes for the purpose of the argument that fluoride is not a natural constituent in many areas of Britain. In fact, fluoride is naturally present in many areas, and adding it would merely bring some areas up to the natural state of others.
Adding fluoride to water will save the NHS and our country many millions of pounds. Every tooth that is unnecessarily filled or extracted is an unnecessary expense. Every day off work due to avoidable toothache is a day lost to British industry. Surely there are better uses for scarce NHS resources than paying dentists for work that could be avoided.
What are the arguments against fluoride? As I see it, there are essentially three: first, medical objections, secondly, civil liberties objections, and thirdly, indemnity problems. The anti-fluoridation lobby sees adding minute traces of fluoride to water as a threat to health. The health issues are now as clear as the drinking water itself. I do not have time in this short debate to recite the history of every health scare that has been based on half-baked research over the years. Skeletal fluorosis, cancer, hip fractures and many other conditions have been laid at the door of fluoride in drinking water, but the core of problems for those promoting such theories is that there are large areas of Britain, such as Hartlepool, for example, where fluoride at the optimum level is naturally present. Also, in countries such as the United States of America, very large areas— about half the country— are fluoridated. There is no chemical difference between added and natural fluoride.
The absence of diseases and complained of conditions in such areas compared with areas where there is no fluoride should be more than sufficient proof to satisfy the experts that the hypothesis of a link is unfounded, however the claims have been subject to extensive scientific analysis and found wanting. For example, the cancer scare was examined comprehensively by a Department of Health working party under Professor George Knox in 1984, and just as comprehensively dismissed. There are, of course, those who refuse to be convinced. However, given the tangible and demonstrable benefits of fluoridation, opposing it on scientific grounds against the views of scientists is unreasonable.
I turn to the civil liberties argument, for which I have more respect. At its base, it is an argument for individualism and against democratic bodies working for the public good. There are many occasions when we, as a society, take decisions that impact on the freedom of an individual to carry on life as he or she desires, justifying the decisions on the basis of greater public good. Speed limits on our roads, gun control law, prohibited drugs and restrictions on certain foodstuffs that have public health concerns all come into that category. In such cases, the individual's freedom is curtailed to a limited extent for the greater public good.
The supposed right to drink water free of minute traces of fluoride does not of course exist in many parts of the country, where natural levels of fluoride are present. Therefore, it is not a right in any sensible meaning of the word. Adding fluoride to water in other places thus only takes its constituency up to the natural level elsewhere. When properly examined, this is not a natural rights argument at all.
Fluoridation is no different in principle from any other action that the Government take on behalf of the majority which is, in some instances, against the wishes of the minority. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) wishes to intervene, he can, but his sedentary interventions cannot be encouraged.

Mr. Butterfill: All sorts of substances occur naturally in water— some beneficial, some harmful. In some areas, there is a natural occurrence of lead, and there are radioactive substances in the water in Cornwall. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that those should be added to the water as well?

Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman makes my point precisely. Where there are substances in the water, we should analysis them carefully to see whether they are for the public good or the public harm. If they are for the good, they should be retained. If harmful, they should be removed.
Tangible benefits flow from fluoridation to the socially deprived, and where health authorities have consulted, upwards of four out of five people actively supported fluoridation. In those circumstances, I find it difficult to justify the right of a small number of determined, but perhaps narrow-minded, individuals who wish to oppose the benefits that the general public want.
The third problem— the one on which I seek to press my hon. Friend the Minister—is the issue of indemnities for the water companies. The existing system, under the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, provides for health authorities to request water companies to provide fluoridation in water where, after public consultation, the health authority decides that it is appropriate for its area. The Green Paper raised the issue of the level and the process of consultation. I can only say that the consultations in which I have been involved have been models of consultation and public debate, and have provided a real opportunity for the public to discuss both sides of the argument. These are the processes which have, after public education, produced a 79 per cent. approval rating for fluoridation.
Certain indemnities against criminal or civil liabilities can be given by the Secretary of State to the water companies to protect them against claims, good or bad,

arising as a result of fluoridation of the water supply. The water companies have, in effect, a discretion under existing law whether to comply with a request from the health authorities. Some companies— including Severn Trent, which serves my constituency— are seeking much wider indemnities than those provided by the current scheme.
The problem of the extent of indemnities is complex. I accept that, as indemnities can lead to exposing the public purse to the risk of extensive liabilities, the Minister must consult the Treasury before any extended liabilities can be given. Although I have some sympathy for the position of the water companies— which do not wish to expose themselves or their shareholders to unquantifiable liabilities— it must be recognised that they are monopoly suppliers which make substantial profits out of exploiting their monopoly position. In those circumstances, they are entitled to reasonable indemnities, but it cannot be right for companies to seek an indemnity from all criminal acts— even if there is fault on the part of a company or its employees.
Today, I am seeking assurances from the Minister on three grounds: first, that she will, at an early date, conduct discussions with the water companies and her Treasury colleagues to seek to agree a standard set of indemnities that can be given by public authorities where a request to fluoridate is made; secondly, that when the Green Paper is followed by a White Paper and legislation, the standard indemnities will be set out in a schedule or in secondary legislation so that everyone knows where they stand on indemnities and so that these issues are not open to further negotiation; thirdly, that when she comes to consider new legislation on fluoridation, my hon. Friend will look carefully at the discretion given to water companies by section 1(1) of the 1985 Act to comply with a request from a health authority.
If a public body such as a health authority conducts a public consultation exercise and reaches a view, in public, that fluoridation of the water supply is right as a public health measure, it should not be open to a private water company to have the discretion to block that measure. There have been no new fluoridation schemes since the discretion was given in the 1985 Act. That has resulted in the blocking of health benefits for a large number of our citizens. I ask the Minister to carefully consider whether the time has come to remove the discretion.
I close by commending the Government on raising the issue in the Green Paper. I hope that the excellent start which has been made will, in the near future, be turned into an effective scheme to give local health authorities an enforceable power to require water to be fluoridated where they consider that appropriate to local circumstances. With this power, I look forward to seeing tangible benefits for my constituents so that the rate of children's tooth decay in Kidderminster falls by two thirds, as demonstrated in neighbouring towns.

Mr. Butterfill: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak in an Adjournment debate— which is essentially for the hon. Member who raises the matter— he must have the permission of the hon. Member and the Minister. Without that, I am afraid that I cannot call him.

The Minister for Public Health(Ms Tessa Jowell): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) on securing this important debate at a time when the public consultation on the Green Paper on public health is drawing to a close. We have received more than 5,000 responses, and there has been overwhelming support for the Government's approach to improving health and tackling health inequality.
As my hon. Friend has described, tackling inequalities in oral health is an important part of the overall programme. There is very good evidence that significant inequalities remain in the oral health of the population. Even at a regional level, there are factor differences in the levels of tooth decay in children. For example, in 1995-96, five-year-olds in the west midlands had, on average, less than half the numbers of decayed, missing or filled primary teeth than those in the north-west.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, some 5 million people receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased to a level of one part per million. Major schemes are in operation in Birmingham and throughout the west midlands, and also in Tyneside. About 500,000 people in this country receive water which is naturally fluoridated at or about the optimum level of one part per million. A further one million people receive water which is naturally fluoridated at a lower level, but which still confers some dental benefit.
Well-documented studies have shown that fluoridation of the water supply can produce a reduction in dental decay in children of about one third or one half. Sandwell was fluoridated in 1986. Over the following 10 years, the amount of tooth decay in children had more than halved. During the same period, an area with a comparable population mix— Blackburn, in the north-west— saw little change in its children's oral health. That example has been replicated in many other places over the past 50 years.

Mr. Butterfill: Very few people in the House would deny that there are health benefits from fluoridation. All my children have received fluoride treatment, and it is difficult to buy toothpaste without fluoride. However, does the Minister agree that there is a significant civil liberties argument, which is that people should be able to choose the medicines they receive? Once the state starts saying that it will enforce the addition of medicine to the water supply, we will be in a dangerous area. We may be open to challenge from the European Court of Human Rights.

Ms Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We recognise that strongly held views exist on both sides of the argument. Undoubtedly, important civil liberties matters need to be considered and I hope that as I continue with my remarks he will understand that the Government's approach is intended to take proper account of those concerns.
My hon. Friend referred to the important deterioration in dental health that occurred when fluoridation was withdrawn in Anglesey. Obviously, in considering a public health measure such as fluoridation, we are concerned above all else with safety. Nothing can ever be pronounced safe in absolute terms, but no ill effects have ever been found to exist as a result of drinking fluoridated water. The view that water fluoridation is safe is that of

the majority of medical and scientific opinion throughout the world, based on practical experience and research over 50 years. In that time, many health problems have been alleged to be linked to fluoridation. They have been investigated and no link was found. I must make it clear to the House that the Government will proceed with an open mind, always willing to consider evidence on either side of the argument. That is a policy pursued in the interests of tackling inequality and applying what works, not in the pursuit of dogma.

Dr. Peter Brand: Does the Minister agree that a precedent to counter the civil liberties argument is the addition of vitamins to white flour, bread and margarine, which has been going on for many years in this country, about which no one has complained and which has certainly prevented much disease?

Ms Jowell: Undoubtedly, there are analogies, but rather than drawing on a point of principle, our concern is to examine fluoridation as a potential area of public policy that would effectively tackle inequality in the enjoyment of oral health. To do so, it is extremely important to enable proper opportunities for local representation.
To underline the safety issues, the most recent research of which we are aware in this country concerned a potential link with hip fracture, which has also proved to be unfounded. Any convincing evidence of harm to general health as a result of drinking artificially fluoridated water at one part per million has yet to emerge. Indeed, it is estimated that throughout the world 210 million people drink artificially fluoridated water.

Mr. Butterfill: rose—

Ms Jowell: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not do so again as I wish to cover a considerable amount of information.
Legislation is the problem at the heart of the issue and the final decision on implementing fluoridation schemes rests with the water undertaker. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 was consolidated in the Water Industry Act 1991. Section 87(1) of the 1991 Act states:
Where a … Health Authority have applied in writing to a water undertaker for the water supplied within an area specified in the application to be fluoridated, that undertaker may, while the application remains in force, increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by the undertaker within that area.
That is the legislative framework, but it is clear that there are shortcomings in the effectiveness of the legislation— the Act has not worked.
Since 1985, 55 health authorities in England— nearly half taking into account the mergers of the past 12 years— have requested water companies to introduce water fluoridation. None of those requests has been accepted. As a result, there have been no new water fluoridation agreements since 1985. The reason is simply that none of the water companies has exercised its discretion to agree to a health authority's request. Since 1985, none of the requests has been accepted and implemented for the benefit of the local populations.
The legislation is also deficient in not specifying how a health authority should test local opinion during consultation. The Act requires only that the proposal be


published in at least one local newspaper and for local authorities to be consulted. Health authorities need to be much more pro-active and we need a much clearer and explicit framework within which consultation is carried out.
My hon. Friend mentioned indemnities, which are clearly another stumbling block in the operation of existing legislation. Water companies are concerned about any liabilities that they may incur from fluoridation. I am aware that some water companies, including Severn Trent, have sought changes to the statutory indemnities that we are able to offer when they implement fluoridation schemes. Our public health White Paper will set out a clear policy framework for fluoridation and we will need to consider any changes to indemnities in that context— it is also in that context that I shall deal with the points about indemnities that my hon. Friend raised. However, in the meantime I would encourage the water industry to work with the health authorities, using the current indemnities available against civil liabilities.
Briefly, on alternative sources of fluoride, to which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred, among the other options for improving oral health is the adding of fluoride to selected foods. Both milk and salt have been tried, but their effect is not universal; nor is it as effective as fluoridating water because of personal preference and compliance. Adding

fluoride to school milk has been shown to have beneficial effects throughout all social classes, but the problem is essentially one of compliance and consent.
To sum up, the present situation is a mess. The public health benefits of fluoridation are clear. The overwhelming evidence is that fluoridation of water is safe and effective. Recent opinion surveys have shown that more than two thirds of the public are in support, but, as I willingly acknowledged, there are those who hold alternative views. Doing nothing is not an option. The fluoridation programme is at a complete impasse. We cannot allow decisions on the principle of introducing a fluoridation scheme to be taken by a body that is accountable to its shareholders rather than its local population. That is why our public health White Paper, when it is published in the autumn, will draw on the extensive range of views offered during extensive consultation. The White Paper will set out the Government's intended framework for a way forward on fluoridation that will be recognised as workable, fair and taking account of the wide measure of public support for that practical policy to tackle inequality in oral health.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor was asked—

Citizens Charter

Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he intends to introduce penalties or sanctions for non-compliance with charter mark objectives; and if he will make a statement. [39789]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Currently, charter mark holders may have their award withdrawn if they fail to maintain the required standard. We have no plans to introduce penalties or sanctions beyond that.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, but I plead with him to consider the matter further. I believe that those who have been awarded the charter mark but whose services subsequently fail to come up to standard— there are instances of this— should have their plaques, and any certificates that they have on display, withdrawn. I hope that he will take the matter seriously. Does he agree that, if the standards that the Government have set are to be maintained, it is important that people recognise that their certificates and plaques can be withdrawn?

Mr. Kilfoyle: Before people are awarded a charter mark, they have to undergo a rigorous process— they must meet the nine criteria that are set out; they must be assessed by independent professional assessors; and the award must subsequently be approved by the panel. The charter mark is not easily obtained, and it is awarded for only three years— people must reapply if they want it extended. There is also the sanction of withdrawal in extremis. My hon. Friend may recall the examples of British Gas, which was not up to standard in the service that it offered, and of London Electricity, to which we provided the support, help and advice to enable it once again to attain the standard that we expect of charter mark holders.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I appreciate the thrust of the question and response, does the Minister accept that a number of groups involved in hospital care in Northern Ireland that have deservedly been awarded the charter mark have found that, given the pressures under the previous Administration, and even currently, they cannot reach the standards set for waiting lists, for example? I was given to understand that there would be no change in the standards, but I hope that those groups will not be punished if, because of an absence of finance, they cannot meet some of those standards.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I welcome part of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I stress that we maintain very high standards for charter marks. Without such high standards, charter marks would not have the credibility which last year led to 947 applications— an increase of 28 per cent.

on the previous year. It is precisely because standards are maintained that so many people apply for a charter mark as a badge of excellence in service quality.

Millennium Compliance

Mr. David Hanson: What progress has been made with regard to millennium compliance within Government. [39790]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): The progress reports that I published on 3 March show that many central Government organisations have reached the testing stage or, in some cases, completed work. An update on progress will be made in June, when I shall also make available information on progress in the wider public sector.
A new year 2000 team has been established in the central information technology unit, in my Department, to chase progress and to help spread best practice across Government Departments and the wider public sector. The new team is also managing a study undertaken by Ernst and Young, which will initially define and map those processes that are key to the maintenance of essential public services in the United Kingdom, including those run by private sector companies.

Mr. Hanson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply and for the work that he and his team are clearly doing to ensure that Departments are millennium compliant by 2000. Does he agree that, as with many private sector businesses, the key to millennium compliance rests with the testing period? He has mentioned that not all Departments have reached that stage. What does he intend to do to ensure that they do, and what further action is planned?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue. Experience in the private sector has shown that difficulties often emerge at the testing stage. I have drawn that to the attention of all my ministerial colleagues and have requested them to undertake internal audits on the tests and to bring in external assessors, so that we have a belt-and-braces approach to the whole affair.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had the opportunity to read today's Financial Times, which says that the national health service is failing to act on the millennium bomb? The software house Prove It 2000 has produced a survey showing that more than a third of NHS trusts, hospitals and general practitioner surgeries have spent nothing on ensuring that their systems can cope with the millennium and that, so far, only 24 per cent. of NHS administration systems are millennium compliant. Does he still maintain that the NHS will be ready for the millennium, and is he prepared— right now— to give a Government guarantee that all NHS services will be fully operational by the first week of 2000?

Dr. Clark: Every health authority and national health service trust has responded to the 31 March 1998 deadline. The summary information from the survey suggests that good progress has been made overall, but, as the hon. Lady said, and as has been reported in the press, a minority of NHS organisations have further work


to do. We at the centre of government have decided to monitor the situation, and regional directors will be required to intervene if progress is found to be unsatisfactory in any NHS organisation. If we had inherited a better-prepared plan for tackling the problem when we took office, we would have been better prepared to deal with what one has to admit is an extremely difficult problem which must be solved, no matter what happens, because the year 2000 will surely come.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend make an urgent attempt to point out to several Departments and agencies that there are major problems with their computer systems? There is a problem at the Inland Revenue and a severe problem with air traffic control, and there is clear evidence that some Departments will face the same difficulties. Will he please talk severely to those in charge and say that it is now well beyond the 1 1 th hour, and that the 12th hour may be very painful indeed?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the problem has to be solved. We have never pretended that it is easy: it is not. We have established a Cabinet Committee to consider the problem overall, and we are working with Ministers to try to ensure that plans are in place to ensure that Departments are compliant on 1 January 2000. Indeed, we have done more than that: we have published all the details in the Libraries of both Houses and on the internet, and I shall return to the House every three months to give an update on the plans. It is clear that we need to be absolutely open and show the world that we are tackling the problem.

Civil Servants

Dr. Alan Whitehead: What steps he is taking to encourage exchange of expertise between United Kingdom and Commonwealth civil servants. [39791]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We are keen to encourage the exchange of expertise between the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Governments. There is a range of formal and informal mechanisms through which we exchange expertise with Commonwealth Governments. The Cabinet Office's international public service unit promotes and exports United Kingdom expertise in public sector reform and public administration. The Cabinet Office is also a member of the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration, whose aim is to enhance Commonwealth co-operation in improving managerial competence in government.

Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that full answer. In the light of what he says, is he prepared to have another look at the regulations passed by the previous Government, which effectively prevent Commonwealth citizens from applying for United Kingdom civil service jobs?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I should like to see progress being made in opening up the civil service to selection on merit regardless of nationality— but in a way that does not compromise the United Kingdom's right to reserve posts

for its own nationals when necessary. A straightforward reversal of the 1996 rule changes would carry a real risk that the United Kingdom might lose that right. It would lay us open to legal challenges from non-Irish European economic area nationals saying that they had been discriminated against, and an unfavourable judgment in the European Court of Justice might find that we had prejudiced our position by appointing Irish and Commonwealth citizens to reserved posts.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such exchanges are extremely valuable? It is a question not of a civil servant from Australia simply taking the job of an official in England, but of possibilities for officials from both sides to have the opportunity to work in different Government Departments. Does he also agree that it would be valuable to offer places in British Ministries to the occasional European Union official, to give those people a chance to see how our officials work? Might not the presence of a French Enarque in the DHSS do wonders for the administration of British government?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we do not have a Department of Health and Social Security any more; we have two separate Departments, so unless the official were schizophrenic he would have great difficulty. However, the point about reciprocity in such exchanges is well made. We learn as we teach other Governments, and we extend our influence within them.

Public Appointments

Fiona Mactaggart: What background checks are conducted on people who are appointed to public bodies. [39792]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The selection process for public appointments assesses the merit of candidates, their ability to maintain standards in public life, and any potential bars to their appointment. As part of this process, Departments may take up references and make other background checks where that is justified by the nature of the post.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he confident that the requirements in the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and practice in general, are sufficiently rigorous in relation to taking up references? It seems to me that it should be the normal practice to take up references, especially references from most recent employers, for people seeking appointment to public bodies. Would the Minister commend that practice to Ministers in other Departments who make such appointments?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I would certainly commend that practice. I should also point out that the code of practice is working well, and that the commissioner has played an important role in bringing it into effect. I should also tell my hon. Friend that it is for the Department responsible for the public body in question to ensure that the guidance from the Cabinet Office is followed.

Sir Patrick Corinack: Bearing in mind the fact that at least three notable ladies—


Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman and Brenda Dean— owed their appointments to health bodies to the previous Government, can the Minister tell the House on how many occasions political allegiance has been taken into account in appointing people to and dismissing people from public bodies over the past year?

Mr. Kilfoyle: A question about political appointments would have been better addressed to the Conservative Government. Under the present Government, appointments are made strictly on the basis of merit, and the overwhelming majority of appointments made are non-political, involving people who make a contribution through public bodies to the public life of this country.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Does the Minister agree that if we are to modernise this country, the CVs of applicants should show that they are not only IT compliant but millennium compliant?

Mr. Kilfoyle: That would be a testing proposition were we to apply it to Conservative Members— we should start with their compliance and computer literacy.

Electronic Service Delivery

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What plans he has to extend his Department's activities in respect of digital communications. [39793]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): The key to the Government's approach is flexibility. We see a variety of channels as providing user-friendly access to electronic government services. The Government's target for electronic delivery of services is not dependent on a single technology or delivery channel. Telephone call centres, personal computers, kiosks, other public access terminals and digital broadcasting are all examples of possible delivery channels.

Mr. Fabricant: Does the Chancellor accept that it is an accident of history that the means of digital communication, whether by telephone, broadcast, narrowcast, cable and so on, are the responsibility of several Government Departments— his own, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry? What is his personal view on that? Does he not think that it would be better were they encompassed within, and regulated by, one Government Department?

Dr. Clark: One of the things that shook me most when I took over my office 12 months ago was to find that we had inherited a position whereby Government Departments could not speak to each other electronically. I found that quite staggering in the modern age. One of the matters on which I have spent a great deal of effort over the past 12 months is the installation of a Government secure intranet, which allows Government Departments to interact electronically. Building on that platform, we can have a truly modern Government and, by using information technology, we can deliver services to our citizens at a time and in a manner of their convenience and of their choosing.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Nigel Evans: When he next intends to visit the Ribble valley to discuss his responsibilities in relation to the Duchy. [39794]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I had the opportunity to pay a visit to the Ribble valley on 1 September 1997 during a tour of the Duchy estates, but I have no plans to pay another visit in the immediate future.

Mr. Evans: That is a great shame— I hope that the Chancellor will look again at his diary. I do not accept the rubbish written in newspapers to the effect that he is ready for the chop in the Prime Minister's first reshuffle, because I am sure that the Prime Minister has total confidence in him and the work that he has done over the past 12 months. In the many months ahead of him, will he visit the Ribble valley and other parts of the Duchy to get the message across about the fund he has at his disposal that receives money from people who have died intestate, which helps organisations, some of which are in the Ribble valley? Will he give publicity to that fund, so that more organisations will be able to apply for funds from that source?

Dr. Clark: I know the Ribble valley well and have spent many enjoyable hours on the side of Clougha and around Dunsop bridge. I accept the hon. Gentleman's kind words. I am not a trustee of the benevolent fund, but, since assuming office, I have widened the membership of the trustees of the fund and have requested— the request has been agreed to— that each of the three lords lieutenant in the County Palatine should have advisory committees to help them to make assessments as to how the charitable grants should be disbursed. I shall certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman's point and try to increase the publicity given to the benevolent fund.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I know that my right hon. Friend is anxious to ensure that magistrates represent the areas in which they serve. In the Ribble valley and the whole of the County Palatine, is he getting sufficient nominations to ensure that magistrates benches are representative of their local area?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. When appointing magistrates, one is required to follow the guideline that one should appoint magistrates who reflect the demographic character of the local population, specifically including the political and religious character. I have to say that, within the County Palatine, there has been a considerable imbalance. That cannot be put right overnight, but we need to make great efforts to ensure that we follow the guidelines. To assist, I have tried to ease up the age of initial appointment, and now, not only in the County Palatine but throughout England, initial appointments to the magistrates bench can be made up to the age of 65, instead of there being a cut-off age of 55. Many people have taken early retirement and have the experience and the knowledge to make good magistrates. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to submit names to the responsible bodies, to try to ensure that that key feature of our magistracy and our legislative system can flourish.

Freedom of Information (Scottish Parliament)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Office on freedom of information in a Scottish Parliament. [39796]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I have had a number of discussions with Scottish Office colleagues as part of the collective consideration of our freedom of information proposals. It will, however, be for the Scottish Parliament itself to determine freedom-of-information arrangements within the areas devolved to it.

Mr. Dalyell: On the non-devolved areas, given the basic nature of members of any parliament, can any of us imagine Members of the Holyrood parliament, of any party, failing to clamour for those extra powers that they think should be theirs by right and then, when they do not get them, blaming the awful "us" at Westminster?

Dr. Clark: We have made it clear that the freedom of information legislation will apply to the reserved powers and reserved legislation held with the United Kingdom Parliament. We have said that it is up to the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament to decide which freedom of information legislation, if any, they want. There will be nothing to stop the Scottish Parliament adopting the United Kingdom legislation if it feels that that is the right legislation to change the political culture relating to openness and secrecy.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Peter Bradley: What representations he has received on his proposals to reform the charter programme. [39797]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We are committed to modernising and improving the quality of public services right across the country by focusing on the issues that are most important to the user. As an important step in trying to achieve this, we have consulted widely on the future shape of the charter programme, and have received very positive and helpful responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals.
Our full plans for the new charter programme will be available when it is launched later in the year.

Mr. Bradley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far too frequently under the previous Government, citizens charters were not worth the paper they were written on? Far from conferring on citizens new and valuable rights, they were too often carefully erected as barriers to keep the public at bay.
Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent research published by the National Consumer Council which found that, of 1,000 public services polled, a third had not acted in response to public consultation that they had conducted and about half were not aware whether the public were happier or less happy with their work since the publication of their charter? Can my hon. Friend advise the House

what practical measures the Government will take to ensure that, in future, performance matches the promise of citizens charters?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The NCC report was taken seriously by the charter unit within the Cabinet Office. The NCC and many other organisations have been consulting with us on how we should redraft the charters. I should point out that the problem with the previous Government was that they believed that everything was top down. We are taking a different approach. Our recent consultation elicited more than 270 responses from organisations and individuals. I have consulted service providers at the coal face, from as far north as Edinburgh down to Southampton, to find out what they think charters should be about. We have now introduced, at the pilot stage, the people's panel, to find out what the citizens expect of public services.

EU Bureaucracy

Mr. David Heath: To what extent he has been able to secure a reduction in EU bureaucracy during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU. [39798]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): In March, we had a successful presidency conference in Manchester at which we discussed ways in which we could improve European Union regulations and minimise unnecessary burdens on business and citizens. Out of that came a 10-point plan, which has been welcomed by the Internal Market Council.
This is part of an on-going programme to cut red tape. Progress will be reviewed in October at the follow-on Vienna conference under the Austrian presidency. I have today placed in the Library copies of the action plan.

Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and commend him for his efforts, but is this not yet another example of the Government entering the British presidency with high hopes and good intentions, but of progress sadly being minimal? Will he establish a timetable so that, beyond the Austrian presidency, there is a clear rationale, to which each member state is committed, behind the reduction of bureaucracy and red tape across the European Union?

Dr. David Clark: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. At national level, we are trying to move from the heavy-handed approach of the state to light-touch government, which we must achieve if we are to survive as national states in the global economy. Every effort must be made to ensure that the European Union follows the constraints that we have adopted at national level. We clearly could not achieve everything that we wanted within a six-month presidency, so we devised what I thought was a rather cunning plan and persuaded the Austrians, who have the follow-on presidency, to adopt the same theme. We also have the Germans' agreement to carry on for a further six months. I hope that there will thus be an 18-month attempt to cut red tape emanating from Brussels.

Mr. John Bercow: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an example of a reduction in European Union bureaucracy that has specifically resulted from the


application of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, which covers subsidiarity, or of the protocol on subsidiarity of the treaty of Amsterdam?

Dr. Clark: We are currently working on a complicated issue that affects white electrical goods, which means that such goods in all member states will be compatible.

Public Consultation

Mr. Bill Rammell: What consultations he has had with the general public on issues relating to the delivery of public services.[39799]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): As part of my better government programme, I am keen to look at government from the point of view of the ordinary citizen. Services should be structured to reflect the needs of citizens, not only to suit service providers. We are putting people first in our attempts to modernise and improve public services. We have carried out extensive consultation with the public and have set up a people's panel, the first in the world. The panel will ensure that, instead of trying to assess the judgment of providers, we know the feelings of ordinary users of public services.

Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, and especially welcome the people's panel, which provides an opportunity to involve ordinary people in everyday decisions that affect the delivery of their Government services. How will the needs of older people be considered in the panel, given that circumstances and isolation often prevent their views from being taken into account?

Dr. Clark: Older people are key users of public services. We have recognised the importance of providing joined-up services, which are more accessible and easier to use. Old people find it doubly difficult to queue and queue, and to fill in occasionally unnecessary forms. To simplify that, I have set up the better government for older people programme, which is running across 28 local councils, with the support of Age Concern and the Anchor Housing Trust. In June, I shall also launch "Passport 50 Plus", which is a sort of pensioners charter. It will cover the rights of older people in health care, pensions and benefit, housing, safety and leisure. It is part of the Government's programme to make sure that public services are in line with the needs of our citizens and convenient to them.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Duchy has done a great deal to assist delivery of services through the steps to which he has referred, but has he, in his consultations, received representations about the importance of sustaining the network of post offices and sub-post offices in rural areas, which are the point of contact for service delivery for many people who cannot afford the high petrol prices in such areas and therefore cannot get to main population centres? Will he help to sustain that network?

Dr. Clark: I am happy to give the assurance that the Government will do all they can to ensure that we protect

post offices in both urban and rural areas. With that in mind, we have already installed in a post office in the south-west a kiosk that will allow individuals to conduct a much wider range of public services than those provided purely by a post office. When we publish our White Paper on better government, the right hon. Gentleman will see that we have imaginative proposals which will involve the Post Office in a banking capacity to help in the delivery of services and benefits.

Mr. Edward Garnier: What characteristics of the panel entitle it to be called the people's panel?

Dr. Clark: The people's panel will replicate demographically the nature of British society. It will allow us for the first time to assess what services the British people want from the Government. It will also allow us to provide the modern services that the British people expect from a modern Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. David Crausby: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, together with the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), I shall pay a visit to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Conservative councils across the country have failed to pass on the £ 2.5 billion that the Government made available for education, unlike Labour-controlled Bolton council, which delivered the full allocation? In those circumstances, how can he ensure that our children all receive a first-class education?

The Prime Minister: We have provided £835 million in current spending, and £1.3 billion over the Parliament for the school repairs programme. There is a clear difference between Labour councils, which have passed that money on to their schools, and Conservative Essex council, which was given an extra £27 million, but which cut £6 million from its education budget. The answer to the question of how to secure children's education is to vote Labour in the elections.

Mr. William Hague: May I offer the continuing support of the Opposition for the efforts of the Prime Minister today to secure a yes vote in the Northern Ireland referendum, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who contributed so much to this historic opportunity? Does the Prime Minister share our grave concern about last week's IRA statement that it had no intention of


decommissioning its arms? In the light of today's reports from Sinn Fein, will he urge Sinn Fein-IRA to sign up to the whole agreement at its meeting this weekend?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is important to emphasise that people must sign up to the whole agreement and not to bits and pieces of it. The whole agreement stands as a package, and everyone who says yes to it is saying yes to all the agreement. They cannot say yes to the bits they like and leave aside the bits that they do not like; they must sign up to the agreement in its entirety.

Mr. Hague: May I welcome what the Prime Minister has said in the past about the need for decommissioning to take place before Sinn Fein members can serve as Ministers in the assembly? I also welcome the assurances that he has given in the past about the conditions to be attached to the early release of prisoners. Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?

The Prime Minister: It is essential that any agreement is signed up to in full. The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good. I can do no better than to quote the words of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), with which I wholeheartedly agree. In his speech today, when referring to decommissioning, he said:
When sensitive matters such as prisoner release on licence are discussed— for which, as the Government has made clear, there is no general amnesty— the independent Commission, and the Secretary of State, are bound to have regard as to whether decommissioning has taken place.
I agree with that entirely. In other words, there is no general amnesty. There must be an absolute giving up of violence, and it cannot be just a tactical ceasefire for a tactical reason.

Mr. Hague: Again, I welcome the general assurances that the Prime Minister has been able to give. May 1 urge him to include such provisions in the relevant legislation when it comes before the House? At that time, Opposition Members will argue strongly that the IRA cannot have prisoners released if it does not give up its guns and explosives.

The Prime Minister: Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course, but it goes further. It is not just a question of decommissioning, but a question of making sure, as the agreement says, that there is a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. What is more, there is provision in the agreement for that to be kept under constant review.
What we cannot have, in terms of security for people, is a tactical ceasefire following which organisations whose prisoners have been released return to violence. As I said at the beginning, the agreement must be viewed as a whole package. People cannot buy into bits and pieces of

it. I hope that everyone signs up to it, but I cannot make it clearer that, if they do, we expect to hold them to the whole agreement.

Ms Jean Corston: I note from my right hon. Friend's engagements that he will not have much time for his family today, which is his birthday. May I wish him many happy returns? May I also remind him, in regard to family policy, that we inherited from the Tories the longest working hours in Europe, low pay and the worst child care? Can he explain how the Government will help parents to do a good job at work and at home— unlike the Opposition, for whom spending more time with their families means getting the sack?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations, although I am getting to the age at which birthdays are a matter of regret. I can tell her two important things that we are doing for the family. First, for working families, there is the family tax credit, which will help families on lower and middle incomes. Secondly, for families in which mothers may not be working— but whether or not they are working— there is a 20 per cent. increase in child benefit. Those two concrete measures will help families. Together with the measures on parental leave, they show that the Government are doing our best to let families balance work and family life.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that for Britain to be implicated in covert sales of arms to Sierra Leone, in direct contravention of UN Security Council resolutions, is wholly inconsistent with any believable concept of an ethical foreign policy?

The Prime Minister: Of course we cannot possibly be in breach of UN resolutions, and that is precisely why the matter was referred to Customs and Excise. I do not want to say more at this stage, but that must be so.

Mr. Ashdown: Of course we must wait for the outcome of any inquiry, but does the Prime Minister agree that for his self-declared concept of an ethical foreign policy to have any validity, any official discovered to be implicated would have to be dealt with in an exemplary manner, and any Minister discovered to be implicated would have to resign?

The Prime Minister: As I said, I do not want to go into what the inquiry may reveal, but of course people cannot possibly deliberately breach UN resolutions, whether they are officials or Ministers. If anyone is found to have done so, disciplinary action will follow.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will my right hon. Friend ensure effective co-ordination between providers of nursery schooling and the playgroup movement? Does he agree that the playgroup movement has made a fine contribution to British society over the years, and that it took some heavy knocks because of the nursery voucher scheme? Will the new money that his Government are giving to playgroups help their flagging morale?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The £6 million today will very much help playgroups and others. Of course, they have been badly hit by the nursery voucher scheme.


That is one reason why we have replaced it with provisions that allow proper nursery education for all four-year-olds. We will then begin the task of bringing that to three-year-olds as well.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in 1994, the Labour group on Croydon council pledged not to increase the council tax for the life of that council? He speaks a lot about partnerships between Government and local authorities. Who is to blame for that broken promise: the Labour Government or the Labour council?

The Prime Minister: Croydon council has given excellent value for money to its local residents. The hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that we are within the limits that were applied by his Government when they were in power. However, even within those limits, the services that are being provided by Labour councils, particularly in sectors such as education, are significantly better than those in Conservative councils. That is a matter of fact and another good reason why I hope that people will support their council in Croydon tomorrow.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm three incontrovertible facts? This year, the people of Dudley will see, first, £7 million extra going into Dudley schools' budgets, secondly, a £3 million programme of repairs and improvements to school buildings and, thirdly, a £66 million IT project getting under way under the private finance initiative to wire up every school to the internet as part of the national grid for learning. Do not those three facts demonstrate the Government's commitment to education, education and education, and can we have the same again next year please?

The Prime Minister: This is all money over and above what the Conservatives were pledged to spend. It is all going into schools, but I give my hon. Friend the fourth incontrovertible fact: Dudley schools have also benefited from £104,000 over and above Tory spending plans on school books.

Mr. James Gray: Will the Prime Minister join me in sending good wishes to the 2nd battalion of the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, which will shortly celebrate its new colours parade at Windsor castle? In doing that, does he agree that the infantry and yeomanry battalions of the Territorial Army provide a disproportionate good to society in terms of both training young people and their town depots, which are the public face of the British Army?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to pass on my congratulations to those people. I hope that they will welcome the outcome of the strategic defence review that is under consideration. I have no doubt that they, like other people within the defence services, will remember the days when a Conservative Government were in power and defence was cut by 30 per cent.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Cambridge city council, which is Labour controlled, on keeping its

council tax increases below the rate of inflation, in contrast with Cambridgeshire county council, which is Conservative controlled, the rate increases of which have gone up by more than three times the inflation rate and which, at the same time, has failed to spend all the extra money that has been allocated to it on education? Will he join me in urging voters everywhere tomorrow to look at those value-for-money issues and, of course, to reject resoundingly the Mickey Mouse economics of the Liberal Democrats?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. The fact is that, as we have seen in Essex, with the Conservatives, people get bigger bills with smaller services. I hope that people remember those lessons when they vote tomorrow.

Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister accept that, for at least two years before Britain joined a single currency, the pound would have to shadow the euro?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that because it is not the case, as the European Commission itself has made clear recently.

Mr. Hague: I am sorry that the Prime Minister cannot accept that requirement, because it comes from the conclusions of last weekend's meeting of Finance Ministers, which was chaired by the Chancellor. The requirement is clear in the statement— which he, as a Head of Government, supported and approved. Now he says that he will not join the euro in this Parliament, and that he will not shadow the euro. Will he give a guarantee that, during this Parliament, he will not instruct the Bank of England to shadow the euro?

The Prime Minister: There is no instruction to shadow the euro, and I have no intention of giving such an instruction. The point that the right hon. Gentleman is making on the exchange rate mechanism is simply wrong. Italy, for example, is being allowed to go forward in monetary union, despite not having been a member of the exchange rate mechanism for two years.

Mr. Hague: Italy joined the ERM in November 1996, and will have been a member of it for two years when the single currency is created. It is no wonder that the Italian Prime Minister said that the Prime Minister was ill prepared for last weekend's meeting. Is it not clear that, to prepare for entry to the single currency, we have to shadow the euro? Will that not entail instructing the Bank of England to target a certain exchange rate, rather than to control inflation in Britain? Is it not clear that that is what the Government will have to do in this Parliament, to enable any Government to enter the single currency early in the next Parliament— as the Chancellor intends, although the Prime Minister is afraid to say so? Is it not time that the Prime Minister— particularly after last weekend's fiasco in Brussels, over which he presided— came clean about his intentions on the matter and told the British people the truth?

The Prime Minister: No. If I may correct the right hon. Gentleman on a point of detail, he was wrong about Italy. The fact is that the two-year period would end in May— which was when the decision was taken. It is,


therefore, wrong to suggest that Italy fulfilled the two-year period. A few weeks ago, the European Commission report made that fact clear. The right hon. Gentleman's other point on shadowing the euro was absolute nonsense, as there is no such requirement. The test of our ability to join monetary union is whether we have sustainable economic convergence—which is judged, although not absolutely, according to the criteria in the Maastricht treaty. Those criteria are taken into account when deciding whether there is sustainable economic convergence. Therefore, his point— that we have to shadow the euro before going into monetary union— is simply wrong.

Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating both staff and councillors at the Labour-controlled South Tyneside council— which was named in Sunday's report in The Observer as the best council in the country— on providing the best services and the most efficient management? On behalf of those very hard-working staff and councillors, will he also ask for an apology from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who, on a recent visit to south Tyneside, openly criticised how the council was run? Does not the council's success show what we have always known: that the Tories have never been able to run local government; that the Liberal Democrats will promise the earth but deliver nothing in local government; and that only Labour-controlled local government provides the type of services that the people not only need, but expect?

The Prime Minister: The lesson is absolutely clear: if people want both prudent finance and decent public services, vote Labour tomorrow.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the Prime Minister also congratulate Aberdeenshire council, which has the great fortune not only of not having an election tomorrow, but of not having a single Labour councillor on the council? On a more serious point, does the Prime Minister recall that, on 25 February, he said that he wanted to see the benefits— especially the jobs— that come from investment in the oil industry? Does he realise how dependent the economy not only of Aberdeenshire, but of the rest of the country is on investment in the oil industry? Does he realise also that one thing that anyone making an investment decision would like to have is some certainty in planning for the future? As the Government have indicated a wish to take more tax out of the industry—but have not yet said how they will do so, and seem to be delaying publication of their consultation on the matter— will he give some assurance to the industry that he realises that stability is crucial in getting money and investment into the economy of the north-east?

The Prime Minister: The oil industry currently has an enormously favourable tax regime. However, we are well aware of the importance of oil companies to investment in the hon. Gentleman's region. I think that oil companies probably welcome the fact that there will be consultation on the new regime— that we have not simply implemented it without consultation, but are saying that there should be

proper consultation before it is implemented. The hon. Gentleman will find that most companies welcome that consultation rather than decry it.

Ann Clwyd: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares the anguish and concern felt by the British public when they see the children of Sudan dying on television before their eyes. The immediate concern is no longer that of access, according to UNICEF to which I spoke this morning, but the shortage of food, the shortage of money to buy supplies and the shortage of aeroplanes. Thousands of children are at immediate risk. Cannot we do more to help them?

The Prime Minister: The situation in Sudan is a great tragedy. It has come about as a result of the long-running civil war, which has resulted in food shortages and drought. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has announced a £4 million pledge towards the 1998 United Nations appeal for Sudan. More than £800,000 has already been provided to the Save the Children Fund, and £200,000 has been given to UNICEF's nutrition programme for Sudan. A further £1.25 million has been allocated through the European Communities programme. As we hold the presidency of the European Council, we have issued a statement urging all parties to the talks to adopt a positive attitude and come to an agreement. In the end, it is only if there is a ceasefire in place that this aid can get through and we can start to rebuild the shattered lives of the people in that region. No one who has seen the pictures and the tragedy of what is happening can be anything other than deeply alarmed and concerned. That is why we are trying to get more money to the region and also trying to make the diplomatic moves necessary to establish the ceasefire.

Mr. Julian Brazier: The Prime Minister will be aware of the concern expressed in all parts of the House and in the House of Lords about the proposals to downgrade the Territorial Army. Will he consider America, Australia and some of the other countries with which he is familiar, and note the greatly increased role that they have found for their citizen combat forces? May I suggest that there is more at stake than just the essential pride that communities feel in their own territorial forces, and that also at stake is this country's ability to regenerate a substantial force in the event of an unforeseen conflict?

The Prime Minister: I have to say that the hon. Gentleman's party was responsible for cutting the Territorial Army considerably. Of course we understand the importance of the Territorial Army. It obviously has a key role to play, but it should be a role fit for the modern world. That is why the strategic defence review is under way. It is considering all our defence forces and how they best fit into the strategic demands of the modern world. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will save his comments until we publish that review. I think he will find that, unlike the previous Government who simply cut the defence expenditure and forces— and cut them savagely— we are trying to make sense of modern defence forces and a foreign policy for the modern world.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Given that many of Britain's beaches are still


badly polluted with sewage, that raw sewage regularly finds its way into our rivers, that untreated sewage is still spread on farmland and that the water companies have made massive profits in recent years, will my right hon. Friend give a clear instruction to the water regulator that we want these environmental problems fixed, and fixed quickly, and that the water companies can do that without putting up their prices?

The Prime Minister: The Director General of Ofwat is currently examining how best to ensure that the investment is forthcoming without harm to consumers, and we are spending £2 billion bringing bathing water up to the EU average. However, it is important to make sure that any investment has a significant and direct impact, and that it has it quickly. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is making sure that the water companies and local authorities are working closely together on that.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Italian gross domestic product, as published by the International Monetary Fund, incorporates the underground economy, which is by definition unmeasurable, so Italy's debt to gross domestic product ratio is false, misleading and grossly understated?

The Prime Minister: The matter was investigated by the European Commission and the European Monetary Institute, which both found in favour of Italy being allowed to join monetary union. The Conservative party, however, should be a little more honest with itself—or at least the part of the Conservative party that is opposed to Europe. It is opposed to the euro under any conditions and, truthfully, it is opposed to any country being in the euro. It is opposed to Britain being in the euro on any basis. Some nod, some shake their heads. That is the Tory party. The criticisms of people such as the hon. Gentleman, who in truth are viscerally opposed to everything European, do not carry a great deal of weight with me or anyone else.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my local borough council, which has set the second lowest council tax in the north-west and ensures that the extra money that it has been allocated for education goes to schools? Unfortunately, we do not have annual council elections this year, but there is a by-election. My right hon. Friend may be surprised to know that the Conservatives have been unable to find a candidate to fight that seat. Is it a case of Tory incompetence or is it pure surrender?

The Prime Minister: The Conservatives are not putting up a candidate for more than 240 council seats. That may be a wise, strategic judgment on their part. However, it is important to emphasise again that if people want the money given to local authorities for education to go to schools, the record shows that Labour councils get that money to the schools and Conservative councils do not.

Mrs. Theresa May: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Treasury Select Committee that it

will take at least five years to assess whether the Government's own economic tests for participation in a single currency have been met?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with that. The judgment as to when the economic criteria are met is best made without reference to any arbitrary time, but according to the tests that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out some time ago. In the end, there are two questions to be decided in respect of monetary union. The first is whether there is an absolute constitutional barrier. I do not know what side of the argument the hon. Lady is on. but we say that there is not. The second is whether, in economic terms, it is good for British jobs, investment and industry. That is the test that we will apply and it is an economic test. It would not helped by having to be applied at some arbitrary date; it has to be applied according to our national economic interest.

Mrs. Janet Dean: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate a group of parents in my constituency on successful establishing Leo's out-of-school club, which will greatly benefit the area? Will he do everything possible to ensure the establishment of more out-of-school clubs, to provide good, safe care for children and increase the opportunities available to their parents?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The Government have set aside £300 million precisely to boost the number of after-school clubs. We hope that over the next few years, some 30,000 more will come into being as a result of the Government's policies. After-school clubs allow children to be better educated and families to balance better the responsibilities of work and family life. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has recently opened one of those clubs in her constituency.

Mr. Richard Allan: Is the Prime Minister aware of the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister that next year, the Government will pick up the cost of the debt to the South Yorkshire supertram, which ran up because of the failure of the previous Government to meet their commitments? What assurance can he give the people of South Yorkshire that, unlike the previous Administration, his Government will stick to their promises?

The Prime Minister: The position— I have just checked with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister— is that he will meet the representatives of the local authority to discuss the issue. Obviously, we cannot give a commitment until that discussion has taken place. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we are having to clear up the absolute mess that was left by the previous Administration. We shall do the best that we can in conjunction with the local authority.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health told the House less than two hours ago that fluoridation of the water supply can cut dental decay by between one third and one half, and that all 55 applications made by health authorities since 1985 to fluoridate the water supply have been turned down by unelected water companies. I have a meeting


with my local dentists on Friday to discuss the politics of dentistry, and it would be helpful if I could tell them the Prime Minister's views on fluoridation.

The Prime Minister: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on finding a national health dentist after 18 years of the Conservatives being in power. Secondly, there is strong evidence that water fluoridation can reduce tooth decay, but our public health White Paper will set out our intended framework for fluoridation, which will be based on extensive consultation. Local consultation is carried out as a compulsory part of any new scheme to add fluoride to water. My hon. Friend asked me for my personal opinion. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the matter, but from what I read, it seems to be better, rather than worse, for people's health.

Mr. Martin Bell: Will the Prime Minister consider the advantages of a free vote on the predatory

pricing of newspapers, so that hon. Members who do not want to vote for the commercial interests of Mr. Rupert Murdoch need not do so, and, disregarding their pagers for a while, can enjoy a vibrant democracy rather than a vibrating one?

The Prime Minister: The Competition Bill will bring our law into line with that in Europe. It will allow us, for the first time, fully to investigate predatory pricing. We have repeatedly said why we opposed the amendment tabled in another place—it would mean that newspapers would not be able to compete against each other at all. That would not be sensible. Most hon. Members now accept that that amendment is not the best way forward. We must bring our legislation into line with that in Europe; that is what the Bill will do and I am sure that hon. Members will support it.

Sierra Leone (Arms Sales)

Mr. Michael Howard: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on reports concerning British arms sales to Sierra Leone in breach of the United Nations arms embargo.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question and I welcome the opportunity to inform the House of the action being pursued by the Government to ensure that the allegations to which he refers are fully investigated.
At the request of the Foreign Office, Customs and Excise is conducting an investigation into whether arms were supplied to Sierra Leone in breach of the UN embargo. The chairman of Customs and Excise has requested that while that investigation proceeds, nothing should be said that could prejudice it. I have made it clear throughout my Department that I want every assistance provided to the investigation, and I have no intention of saying anything that could prejudice its successful completion. Nor would I wish to say anything that might prejudice the rights of defendants in any future court case.
Those constraints are necessary and every Member of the House will recognise that I have a duty to observe them. But I am able, within that limitation, to outline to the House the events leading up to the investigation and the subsequent conduct of the issue in the Foreign Office.
I shall first set out the background to the allegations. In May 1997, President Kabbah, the democratically elected leader of Sierra Leone, was deposed in a military coup. In October, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1132, which imposed an arms embargo on Sierra Leone. It was promptly implemented in this country by an Order in Council prepared by the Foreign Office. Earlier this year, President Kabbah was restored to power in Sierra Leone with the assistance of military forces from the region.
In February, Lord Avebury wrote to an official in the Foreign Office reporting allegations that arms had been flown from Bulgaria to supply forces loyal to President Kabbah by arrangement through Sandline, a British company. The letter was drawn to the attention of our legal advisers, and on 10 March, the Foreign Office formally advised Customs and Excise of the allegations, with the suggestion that it commence an investigation. Foreign Office officials have since co-operated fully with the subsequent investigation, and Customs and Excise has full access to all relevant Foreign Office papers and officials.
I was first informed of the Customs and Excise investigation on the evening of 28 April by a special adviser who had a noted a letter to me from Sandline's solicitors. The next day, I minuted the permanent secretary, stressing the importance that I attached to full and open co-operation with the Customs and Excise investigation.
The private office of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has responsibility for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central

(Mr. Lloyd), received copies of papers on the customs investigation in early April, and they were shown to him for noting in mid-April. However, he was not fully informed of the allegations made by Sandline of Foreign Office contact until Friday 1 May. At no point was any ministerial approval given for the activities of Sandline. Nor was there any ministerial discussion of the activities of Sandline, or any meeting between Ministers and Sandline.
Sandline's allegation that it had approval for its activities from a member or members of the Foreign Office staff is— I believe— part of the customs investigation. We have been requested by Customs and Excise not to hold any investigation of our own while its investigation continues. However, I assure the House that I am determined to establish the full facts. I can therefore announce that it is my intention that, as soon as Customs and Excise is in a position to agree, I shall invite a person from outside the Foreign Office and the diplomatic service to carry out a full investigation. The report of that investigation will, of course, be made public. In the meantime, I commend Foreign Office officials for their prompt action in drawing the allegations to the attention of Customs and Excise and for initiating the investigation.
This Government have consistently supported the legitimacy of the United Nations. This Government abide by the resolutions of the Security Council and are committed to the rule of international law. I assure the House that we have not, and we will not, condone any breach of international law.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his reply and his assurance that there will be an independent inquiry into the matter and that the report of that inquiry will be published in full. It is essential that the whole truth of the murky affair should be exposed to public view and that appropriate judgments can be made and appropriate action taken.
The Foreign Secretary told us that the first he knew about the matter was when a letter from Sandline was drawn to his attention on 28 April. Can he tell us the date of that letter? Will he tell us a little more about the debate in which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) took part in the House on 12 March after, according to the Foreign Secretary's account, his officials had decided to ask Customs and Excise to conduct an inquiry into the matter? Why did the Minister of State, who had clearly been briefed on the matter in order to speak in the debate on 12 March, not refer to that inquiry?
Is the Foreign Secretary seriously telling the House that Foreign and Commonwealth officials had asked Customs and Excise on 10 March to conduct an inquiry, but told the Minister of State nothing whatever about it before he came to the House for a debate on 12 March? Is it seriously suggested that they did not inform him of their request? If that is so, does not that indicate that Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are wholly out of control? Is that not an utterly unacceptable state of affairs? Can the Foreign Secretary give us some assurance now of the action he will take if what must be the case, on the


basis of the account he has given this afternoon, is ultimately proved to be so by the independent inquiry that he has assured us he will set up?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what I understood was his welcome for my announcement. As to the letter from Sandline, I speak from memory, but, if I recall rightly, it was 24 April. [HON. MEMBERS: "Here is the answer."] I see that this note tells me that my memory is correct— it was 24 April. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing out the prompt note, but I did not need it. It is probable that I would have heard about the matter on the Monday; except that, on the Monday and Tuesday— as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware— I was in Brussels. The difference between 24 and 28 April is a perfectly narrow period of time.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked a serious question about the debate in the House on 12 March. That is a matter of deep concern to me, and of proper concern to the House. I answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question by saying that the Minister of State first heard about the Customs and Excise investigation in mid-April. It is unsatisfactory that he was put at the Dispatch Box in Parliament to speak to the House without being informed that a Customs and Excise investigation had been requested on 10 March. That was unfair to the Minister of State and unfair to Parliament. That will most certainly form part of the independent inquiry which I have announced.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked, breathtakingly, what action I will take. It would be quite wrong of me to prejudge what the independent inquiry might find or what action will follow, but I can assure him that we are determined to get at the facts and that the facts will be followed by necessary action.

Mr. Donald Anderson: To put the matter in perspective, would not any attempt by any person to compare this matter with arms for Iraq be totally absurd, not only because of the immediate, prompt and positive response of the Foreign Secretary in setting up an independent inquiry, but because the aim was not to support a dictatorial regime with arms which could be used against our own troops, but to seek the re-establishment of a democratically and internationally recognised president?
Having said that, on 10 March my right hon. Friend's officials referred this matter to Customs and Excise for investigation. There is surely a fairly simple point at issue here which could be easily ascertained. Can my right hon. Friend say whether, between 10 March and now, it has been drawn to his attention whether a licence for the export of those arms was issued? If that could be done orally, is there any minute in the relevant Department to suggest that an export licence had been issued, as has been said today by Mr. Slowe, the solicitor acting on behalf of Sandline?

Mr. Cook: No licence was given for the export of any arms; nor is there an allegation that any arms were shipped from Britain. The allegation is that they were shipped from Bulgaria, but that the contract may have been arranged by a British company. If the allegations are correct— I am not in a position to say whether they are— that gives rise to an offence within Britain under the terms

of the UN resolution. That is why we are treating the matter with great gravity, but there has been no suggestion of either arms being shipped from Britain or any licence being approved for such a shipment.
As to any comparison with Matrix Churchill, the central problem there was the way in which the then Ministers sought to cover up what had happened and their own involvement. By contrast, we are being full and open in co-operating with an investigation which we ourselves have requested.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I commend the Foreign Secretary on his decision to establish an independent inquiry in due course. He referred in passing to the Scott inquiry. He will recall not only that Lord Justice Scott found that the House had been deliberately misled, but that when that finding was made, the Cabinet of the then Government declined to accept the finding of the independent inquiry that they had established.
Does the right hon. Member agree that for the independent inquiry which he proposes, there are four substantial and important questions? First, was there any breach of UN Security Council 1132? Secondly, has there been a contravention of domestic criminal law? Thirdly, is there any Foreign Office implication at any level? Fourthly, why were Ministers not informed much earlier than was the case in the account of events that he has just given the House?
Do not those matters and the answers that the Foreign Secretary has given to questions underline yet again the need for parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports through the medium of a Select Committee of the House of Commons?

Mr. Cook: We are, of course, committed to greater openness on the export of arms, and that is why we are committed to an annual report on strategic arms exports, the first of which we will be launching shortly. While I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern and would not disagree with the general thrust of what he said, he is wide of the mark in this case, because there is no suggestion that arms were exported from Britain or any licence was given, or indeed, that any decision taken by the British Government is relevant.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked four relevant questions and he will appreciate that the first three are entirely matters for the criminal investigation and it would not be proper for me to comment on them. The fourth is certainly an issue that must be central to the independent inquiry that will follow the customs investigation.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the previous Government referred the British Manufacturing and Research Company, BMARC, to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Unfortunately, that Committee did not have the resources to get to the bottom of the matter. Therefore, will he ensure that the independent investigation has the resources and has access to the documentation to get to the bottom of this matter?

Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that any independent person we appoint to carry out that investigation will have the full run of Foreign Office files and officials— I would not expect a person of seniority


and independence to accept the post on any other basis. I also assure the House that those files and officials are also currently available to the customs investigation, which we are giving full, active and open co-operation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his statement to the effect that he welcomes the opportunity to inform the House of the facts would carry greater credibility had he volunteered a statement and not been brought here pursuant to a private notice question? He said that a report is to be published, and that is good news. Will he also undertake to publish the reporting telegrams received during the relevant period within the Foreign Office and all papers to Ministers during that period?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also understand the incredulity with which his remarks have been received? Assuming that what we have been told by Ministers is true, apparently they did not know what went on between Sandline and the Commissioner, and did not know until recently about the Customs and Excise inquiry. Apparently, the Minister of State was not briefed before his appearance before the Select Committee yesterday. Is not the truth that Ministers have lost control of their own Department?

Mr. Cook: I find the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about incredulity deeply offensive, because they are tantamount to accusing me of deceiving the House. I assure him and other hon. Members that everything that I have said is factually, precisely, correct, and that will be borne out by any independent inquiry, which is why I will welcome its publication. It is, of course, for that independent investigation to decide which files are relevant to the future publication. It is a bit rich of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to invite me to appoint an independent investigation and suggest which papers it should publish.

Ann Clwyd: I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that, unlike what happened under the previous Government, no public interest immunity certificates are being, have been, or will be signed by any Ministers in his Department?

Mr. Cook: I have already notified the permanent secretary that I am not willing to sign any public interest immunity certificate in any future court proceedings on this matter.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as Customs and Excise does not report to the Foreign Office and presumably will not have any powers to interview Foreign Office Ministers or require them to attend any inquiry, one must consider that its inquiry is secondary to getting to the real basis of the problem? As that inquiry has supposedly being going on for six or eight weeks, is it not really the case that the matter is important enough for him to start the Foreign Office inquiry right away and to ensure that it has full powers to see all Ministers and really get to the bottom of the matter before it is whitewashed away and forgotten?

Mr. Cook: There will be no whitewash. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to condemn me if I were

now to take action that would prejudice the customs investigation against the specific request of the chairman of the Customs and Excise— I cannot think of a more irresponsible step that any Minister of the Crown could take. I should disabuse the right hon. Gentleman of his belief that Customs and Excise does not have the right to summon me or any other Minister to appear before it—it most certainly has that right, and we should willingly appear if requested.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about what the Tories are up to? They are trying to give the impression that— despite the fact that he has come to the House to explain everything— he is similar to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who was up to his neck in BMARC and the rest of it, and to all those serried ranks who hid behind the arms to Iraq. Unlike them, my right hon. Friend has done the right thing. It is pretty clear to me that the hooray Henrys in the Foreign Office who went to public schools— the same belly of the establishment from which Conservative Members come— caused the problem that we are discussing. The Tories are trying to make a seven-course dinner out of a pan of boiling water.

Mr. Cook: I think that I can go along with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. He is plainly right to contrast our response to this matter, which has been vigorous and open, with that of the previous Administration to other scandals. One of the differences is that we accept that the issue is serious— the performance of Ministers in the previous Administration was undermined by the fact that they denied that the issues that they faced were serious. I accept that if there has been a breach, that is a very serious matter which must be fully and openly investigated so that the full facts can be established.

Mr. David Wilshire: Yesterday, the Minister of State told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that he first knew of the Customs and Excise inquiry on Friday 1 May. This afternoon, the Foreign Secretary has told us the Minister of State first knew about the matter when he was shown correspondence in mid-April. Which version of events is correct?

Mr. Cook: The House would expect me to give the correct version, as I have. What I told the House today follows full investigation of the paper trail and consultation with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who entirely agrees with what I said. The essential burden of what he said to the Select Committee yesterday was absolutely correct— he was first fully informed of the allegations by Sandline of contacts with the Foreign Office last Friday, when he went through all the papers. That is the truth of the case, as I have stated in the House this afternoon.

Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, House of Commons knockabout aside, the real issue is the tragedy of Africa post-empire? Some of the reasons for the chaos, the war and the suffering have been precisely what we are discussing— arms dealing, gun running and the fact that some western Governments have cynically


interfered for commercial ends. Labour Members welcome the independent inquiry and the fact that its findings will be published, as there is a serious underlying issue.

Mr. Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend and welcome her support for my announcement today. If we hope to restore stability and to avert conflict in Africa and elsewhere, we should all keep very much in focus the importance of upholding the legitimacy of the United Nations. We can do that only if we take seriously compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has told us what he finds offensive in some of the questions, but I ask him to go back to the beginning of his statement and tell us the purpose of the United Nations resolution on Sierra Leone and whether the UN backed Nigerian intervention. Will he stop washing his hands and start defending people in his Department who are doing what they believe Ministers want in accordance with UN aims?

Mr. Cook: There was no Government policy or UN support for military intervention to restore President Kabbah. Resolution 1132 and consistent ministerial statements on Sierra Leone stressed that we supported President Kabbah, but wanted him to be restored through diplomatic negotiation, not military intervention. The hon. Gentleman is wildly out of touch with reality if he suggests that a breach of a UN Security Council resolution that we ourselves voted for was somehow going along with ministerial policy.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about not using public interest immunity certificates and remind him that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who asked the question, and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) were among those queuing up to authorise such certificates in the case of arms to Iraq? Does not the whole affair underline the need for the Government to renew their efforts to get agreement among those who seek to sell arms materials to other countries?

Mr. Cook: I entirely agree. I am pleased to report that we are nearing agreement on a European code of conduct and that, more immediately, at the forthcoming summit of the G8 nations, we will pursue a British initiative to try to get a grip on the illicit trade in small arms, to which the present example may come rather close.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The Foreign Secretary told us that Lord Avebury wrote to the Foreign Office in early February. When did the noble Lord receive a reply, and which Minister signed it?

Mr. Cook: Lord Avebury's letter was not to a Minister but to an official, and he received a reply from that official on 26 February.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend's swift action. Will he point out to the public the clear distinction between the restoration of

a democratic Government in Sierra Leone and the illegal arming of a fascist, expansionist dictatorship in Iraq that took place under the previous Government? The then Government spent eight years trying to cover up the fact that people in this country were involved in arming that regime.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw a distinction between the outcomes, but no hon. Member should understate the gravity of a breach of a Security Council resolution, if, indeed, that is what happened. The real distinction between the conduct of the previous and present Administrations is that they sought to cover up what happened and we are trying to be frank and open about what happened.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The Foreign Secretary clearly takes this matter very seriously. Does he acknowledge that this is undoubtedly a humiliation for an ethical and open foreign policy? Will he confirm that the investigation will include contacts, correspondence and telephone messages between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, if such contacts took place? Will he further confirm that, in line with the Government's absolute commitment to open government, all the documents will be published and placed in the Library?

Mr. Cook: I can certainly confirm that all papers that are held in the Foreign Office are available to customs for investigation. I cannot speak for other Ministers or Ministries, but it is not my view that there are substantial files on the matter elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman may be suggesting that there was some discussion about an export licence, but there was no such discussion; there was no export of arms from Britain and no licence was sought from Britain.
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that this is a humiliation for the principles that we have been pursuing. This is a case in which there may well have been a breach of a Security Council resolution and a breach of the law of Britain as a result of the Order in Council that we introduced, and we are determined to pursue the matter and ensure that it is carried through to a successful conclusion.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Some of my hon. Friends have been critical of Opposition Members who have expressed incredulity, but should not we be fair to them and recognise the fact that, over the past 18 years, they have become accustomed to government by cover-up, and it is difficult for them to adjust to a Government who are committed to openness?

Mr. Cook: I do not think that I can improve on my hon. Friend's point by seeking to add to it.

Mr. David Maclean: In addition to the public inquiry investigating the extraordinary state of affairs whereby no officials in the Foreign Office drew the scandal to the Foreign Secretary's attention, despite his protestations about an ethical foreign policy, will an independent inquiry investigate why when the Minister of State was first alerted to the matter, he apparently did not discuss it with


the Foreign Secretary either? It is an extraordinary state of affairs when Ministers do not seem to discuss such matters, and the Foreign Secretary first learns about such a problem in a tip-off from a political adviser.

Mr. Cook: Special advisers are paid to draw matters to my attention, and that is what one did on this occasion. It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should describe the way in which one of them fulfilled his job as a "tip-off'. I have seen the papers that the Minister of State saw in mid-April, and there were no grounds for concern in them, in that they did not outline the nature of the Sandline allegations, which are serious and which we are pursuing seriously.

Mr. Keith Simpson: The question is one of competence. I remind the House that, last week, when the Foreign Secretary had to come here to make a statement about Kosovo, and I asked him about the presence of British troops on exercise in Macedonia, he said that he did not think that there were British troops in Macedonia. He then had to have a note passed from his officials saying that British troops were there, and he graciously apologised. I thought at the time, as did many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that it was rather strange that the Foreign Secretary did not know that crucial fact connected with a crisis.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, it was a special adviser who came across the truth. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that that was good for the special adviser— but I am afraid that it does not answer the question, which was why the highly paid officials within the Foreign Office did not present that information to the Foreign Secretary. Is he completely out of touch with British foreign policy?

Mr. Cook: It is not British foreign policy to supply weapons in breach of Security Council resolutions. That is exactly the policy which I expect my officials to pursue. As for the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I am not the first, and I will probably not be the last, Minister at the Dispatch Box to have a note passed to him by officials.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Clearly, the Foreign Secretary is not insensitive to the fact that a serious allegation has been made against the Foreign OfficeMr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): Clearly, the Foreign Secretary is not insensitive to the fact that a serious allegation has been made against the Foreign OfficeMr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): Clearly, the Foreign Secretary is not insensitive to the fact that a serious allegation has been made against the Foreign Office that its officials co-operated in some way with Sandline. That allegation has enabled people such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to make fun of the Foreign Office, which is not good news either for the Foreign Office or for the United Kingdom in general.
The right hon. Gentleman's statement was rather unfair on Foreign Office officials, because it leaves them in something of a limbo. I do not understand why he has not instructed the permanent secretary to conduct inquiries within the Foreign Office as a matter of urgency, and ask all the relevant and appropriate officials what contact, if any, they had with Sandline.
It seems extremely unfair on all those involved that the matter should be left as a matter of speculation and deliberation until Customs and Excise, magically, seems

to have concluded its investigations. There must have been telegrams from Sierra Leone and intelligence reports, and all such things are capable of being comprehended in a reasonably short period.

Mr. Cook: The reason why I have not instructed the permanent secretary to carry out the investigation that the hon. Gentleman requests was spelt out in my statement: we were specifically requested by Customs and Excise not to make an investigation.

Mr. Baldry: Who runs the Foreign Office—Customs and Excise or the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Cook: Customs and Excise is the criminal investigating branch in that area. It is important that neither the Foreign Office nor Members of the House do anything to prejudice the investigation—and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would be among the first to congratulate me were I to do any such thing. Therefore, no investigation has been carried out; but I have given a commitment that there will be a full and independent investigation afterwards.
I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's other point—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might at least do me the courtesy of listening to my reply. I stoutly resist the claim that I have made any allegations against officials in the Foreign Office. We are taking seriously, as we are bound to, the allegations made by Sandline, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that the fact that allegations against officials have been made by Sandline does not necessarily mean that they are true.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not a particularly sensitive flower, as I think you know, but I should like to say something about the allegation made against me by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Madam Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking an extension of the private notice question. He has been here long enough to know that a point of order must be something that concerns me and on which I can give a ruling.

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am dealing with one from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Mr. Hogg: The suggestion was that I was up to my ears in BMARC. You, Madam Speaker, know that Members of Parliament are under a duty to look after the interests of their constituents; BMARC was a constituent of mine and my only dealings with BMARC took place within that context. There has never been any allegation made against me, other than by the hon. Member for Bolsover. So clear was that fact that, to the best of my knowledge, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry never made any inquiry of me.

Madam Speaker: When the hon. Member for Bolsover was making the comment, I noticed that the right hon.


and learned Gentleman had an amused look on his face. I know full well that he has a sufficiently robust presence in the House to give as much as he takes.

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the previous point of order. I rise to seek your guidance on the procedures of the House. When a Secretary of State comes to the House and makes comments that are contradictory to evidence given by one of his junior Ministers, as has happened this afternoon, what procedures does the House have to get the Minister of State to come to the House and explain why he said what he said yesterday?

Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman might like to talk to his own Front Benchers or to the usual channels. It is a question for debate, not a matter for me.

Protection of Animals (Amendment)

Dr. Nick Palmer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the cost of keeping an animal pending a court case to be met; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is a simple one and broadly uncontroversial. The problem is that when a farmer is accused of neglecting animals in his or her care, usually because of financial difficulty, it is customary for a court prosecution to be undertaken and for the animals to be given for the duration of that prosecution into the care of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a local authority, or some other body. The difficulty is that the animals have to be kept and maintained throughout the duration of the court case, which may last a considerable time, during which the animals may die of old age, or become relatively elderly and relatively valueless at market.
That is not in the interests of the RSPCA or local authority, because they bear the full cost of looking after the animals, but have no prospect of recovering the money. It is not in the interests of the farmer who has been accused of neglect, whether or not he is successful in defending the case, because he will find that when the case is over the value of the animals has largely disappeared. It is not in the interests of the animals themselves, because it becomes increasingly difficult to find bodies willing to take over their care, sometimes at very short notice.
Let me give two recent examples. In the first, the RSPCA was asked at short notice to look after 10,000 broiler chickens that were in a half-starved state, many of which were already dead or diseased. In the second case, a farmer was threatened with his electricity being cut off if he did not pay his bill immediately, which he could not afford to do. Cutting off the electricity would have endangered his entire herd of 3,500 pigs.
The Bill has been discussed jointly with the RSPCA, the National Farmers Union and civil servants at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It proposes that the court, after hearing about the veterinary and commercial implications from whoever wishes to give evidence, should have the power to order that the animals be sold to a farmer who is better able to look after them and that the proceeds should, first, be used to cover the reasonable costs of whatever body looks after the animals and, secondly, go to the farmer, who might in that way be able to stave off the bankruptcy that threatens him.
The measure involves only a small modification to the existing procedure. Usually, at the end of the court case, the animals will be sold and the proceeds used in the way I have described. Under my Bill, rather than wait until the end of the court case, when the animals may be worth much less, the sale should be able to take place at an earlier time if the court so determines.
The measure has broad cross-party support and was discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before the general election. At that stage, the RSPCA received some initial encouragement, and I am glad to say that Ministry officials have continued to be encouraging. I am hopeful that, in due course, the Bill will receive Government support. The list of sponsors reflects its broad support.


The measure is in the interests of the body that looks after the animals, the farmer who is threatened with bankruptcy and the animals involved. I am aware that I have 10 minutes, but this is a simple Bill and I do not need further time. I ask the House for permission to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Tim Loughton, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Ian Cawsey and Liz Blackman.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT)

Dr. Nick Palmer accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the cost of keeping an animal pending a court case to be met; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 184].

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),

That the further Report [5th May] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Resolved,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. McFall.]

Following is the report of the Business Committee [5 May]:

That—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of the Bill shall be taken in the following order, namely, New Clauses and New Schedules tabled on or before 30th April, amendments to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 20, Schedule 2, Clause 21, Schedule 3, Clauses 22 to 28. Schedule 4, Clauses 29 to 91, Schedule 6, Clauses 92 to 109 and Schedule 5. remaining New Clauses and New Schedules, amendments to Clause 110, Schedules 7 and 8 and Clauses 1 1 1 to 116,
(b) the three days allotted under the order [13th January] to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below, and
(c) each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the order, as amended on 30th April) on the expiry of the allotted period (calculated from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill) specified in the third column of the Table.

TABLE

Allotted day
Proceedings
Allotted period


First day
New Clause 1
6 hours 30 minutes


Second and third days
Remaining proceedings (according to time limits to be determined by a further report or further reports of the Business Committee)
Second day and 6 hours and 30 minutes on the third day.

Orders of the Day — Scotland Bill

[1 ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Committee), considered.

New clause 1

REVIEW OF ROLE OF SCOTTISH MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF COMMONS

'.—The Secretary of State shall carry out and, not later than 12 months after the passing of this Act, publish a review of the appropriate functions and powers of Members of the House of Commons representing Scottish constituencies in relation to the conduct of business in that House in light of the provisions contained in this Act.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 114, page 52, line 30, at end insert—

'(2A) No order under subsection (1), other than an order relating to section 81, may be made unless the Secretary of State has published the review of the functions and powers of Members of the House of Commons representing Scottish constituencies which he is required to carry out under section (Review of role of Scottish Members of House of Commons)'..

Mr. Ancram: The new clause is about the English dimension of the Bill. It is about how to retain fairness and balance within the United Kingdom Parliament, which we believe the Bill threatens to undermine. In particular, it is about what the role of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster should be once there is a Scottish Parliament. This is all the more relevant today, because it looks as if the worst fears of Unionists about devolution are set to be fulfilled, because the Scottish National party is likely to seize at least a substantial tranche of seats in a Scottish Parliament.
I make no apology for returning to this issue. From the outset of the legislation, the Government have done their level best to dismiss its importance—on the last occasion cynically manipulating and curtailing the time for debate. The Government are caught between a rock and a hard place. They know that the glaring imbalance created within this Parliament by their proposals will inevitably become a source of resentment and division between Scots and English, and they do not want that. They know equally that, if they genuinely addressed the problem, they would substantially weaken their influence in the House on English matters, and they do not want that, either. It is not that they have no answers, but that they fear the answers, because either their Unionism or their political power base is at risk.

Mr. James Wallace: I do not recall substantive proposals coming from Conservative Front Benchers when we debated the matter previously, and the new clause would pass the buck to the Secretary of State after a Scottish Parliament was established. The


right hon. Gentleman has just started his speech: can we expect substantive proposals for tackling what he describes as the English dimension?

Mr. Ancram: As a lawyer, the hon. and learned Gentleman would expect me to make my argument logically and consequentially. If he waits, he will receive the answer to his question.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but, in terms of logical advancement of rational debate, I would have expected the solution favoured by Conservative Front-Bench Members to appear in an amendment. It has not—why?

Mr. Ancram: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when we debated the issue previously. He may not have been; throughout, he has buried his head in the sand and hoped that the problem would fade away. Had he been present, he would have heard me say that a number of solutions are available, none of which is without flaws, but each of which must be examined and used to find an answer to the problem. I am asking the Secretary of State, who is in charge of the Bill, to set up an independent inquiry to examine the matter and make non-partisan recommendations to the House. I shall return to that matter later in my speech.
The Government do not like to discuss this subject. In our previous debate on it, they resorted to abusing any Conservative Member—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), a former Prime Minister—who mentioned it. They hurled pathetic accusations, suggesting that we were anti-Scottish in raising it. I can think of nothing more nonsensical, unless by anti-Scottish they mean anti-separatist. I would plead guilty to that.
If the Government's claims that they want the United Kingdom to be maintained and Scotland's place in it to be strengthened are genuine, fairness in this Parliament is paramount. They should welcome our efforts to find an answer that works, but instead they are making an enormous political miscalculation, which is becoming a habit for them. Only six months ago, they campaigned hand in hand with nationalists for a yes vote in the referendum and, as my hon. Friends remember, told their supporters that they had the measure of the Scottish National party. In haunting words, the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), said that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. Stone dead? Nationalism is trampling all over them.
Opinion polls consistently show what Conservative Members warned about throughout the devolution referendum. We said that the creation of a focus for nationalism would not weaken nationalism, but strengthen it. We were mocked for our pains. Opinion polls now show nationalists running Labour neck and neck for seats in a Scottish Parliament. The Government are running scared—they could not have got it more wrong if they had tried. They apparently believed that the credibility that they had bestowed on the SNP would fade away once the referendum was over. They were wrong then, and they are wrong about the English dimension now.

Mr. John Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman is commenting on trends in opinion polls,

which are what should be observed. What does he think about the trend of Conservative party support in opinion polls since the referendum?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman reads the opinion polls today, he will see that the Conservative position has improved somewhat in terms of a Scottish Parliament and a general election. I shall not make a great deal of that: I merely point out that the people of Scotland were told by the Labour party during the referendum campaign that if they voted yes, Scottish nationalism would be killed stone dead. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) looks anything but stone dead. The opinion polls this morning show just how wrong the Labour Government were.
The Government are also wrong about the English dimension, because that political reality cannot be ignored. This debate is far from anti-Scottish. It is about the United Kingdom and about the place of England and Scotland in the United Kingdom. It is in all our interests to get the legislation right before it is too late. It would be easy for us to sit back and enjoy the Secretary of State's well-earned discomfort, saying, "We told you so." But, as Unionists, we cannot do that.
We have argued throughout the discussions on this legislation that we must make the Scottish Parliament work. We did not want it, but, as Unionists, we have accepted democratically that the aspirations of those who have shown in the referendum their desire to have more say over their own affairs within the United Kingdom must be met. That is easier said than done.
The Bill is full of fundamental flaws, especially relating to Scotland's voice in Europe and the fair allocation of resources in the United Kingdom after devolution. It is packed with anomalies, such as why a Scottish Parliament can vote for euthanasia or capital punishment but not for abortion. It is full of ambiguities as to the future role of the Secretary of State and who precisely in Scotland will pay the extra tax presaged in the Bill. The Bill came to the House a mess, and I fear that it will depart it a mess because of the Government's intransigence. Nevertheless, we must try to make it work, if only to ensure that the Edinburgh Parliament does not collapse into an uncontrolled free fall towards separation.
We want to ensure that the Scottish Parliament works in harmony with the United Kingdom Parliament, because destabilisation and imbalance are the enemies of that harmony. It is not enough to rely on the Government's increasingly implausible scenario of Labour Administrations in London and in Edinburgh acting in fraternal concert to create synthetic harmony and stability. On current evidence, it would be laughable and irresponsible to do so, but that has been the Government's only answer throughout.
The Government have told the House that there is nothing to worry about. We have all heard the phrase, "Nothing has really changed." We have heard them say in answer to questions about an imbalance, "What imbalance?" One thing is certain: the Bill creates a substantial constitutional imbalance within the United Kingdom between Scotland and England, and even between Scotland and Wales. That instability cannot be wished away. The vital task of redressing the balance must begin in this House of Commons. If there is to be balance, it must be based on fairness within this Parliament.


It is clearly unfair that Members from one part of the United Kingdom should be able to decide or influence decisions on matters solely affecting other parts of the United Kingdom, when they cannot similarly decide for their own areas or constituents, particularly if there is no reciprocal right of decision making or influence for Members from those other areas; yet that is what the Bill sets out to do.
It is not an option for the House to do nothing about that, because the Bill leaves the largest part of the United Kingdom—England—with the rawest part of the deal. It constitutionally diminishes England, and excludes it from influencing domestic issues in parts of the United Kingdom while allowing Members from those very parts to influence similar domestic issues in England, even if they cannot do so for their own constituents. It leaves England to pay the lion's share of the bill, while not being able to call to account those who spend it.
That runs counter to the principles of the Union, and produces nothing but unfairness for England. We should not be surprised if England starts to object. There will not necessarily be a backlash—if I may say so, the English do not tend to lash—but growing English consciousness is bound to have political consequences if it is not addressed.
It is axiomatic that, where possible, the same rights and restrictions should apply to hon. Members whether they represent constituencies in Scotland, England, Wales or even Northern Ireland. Our constitutional objective as Unionists must be to sustain a supreme and sovereign United Kingdom Parliament, in which Members from throughout the Kingdom enjoy the same status and esteem.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing characteristic courtesy.
Why is the right hon. Gentleman so hostile in principle to constitutional change, given that he argued, honourably, for radical constitutional change in Northern Ireland? Is he coming round to the idea—supported, apparently, by an increasing number of his right hon. and hon. Friends—that a federal Britain is the way ahead?

Mr. Ancram: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should accuse me of taking that view on constitutional change. I make no secret of the fact that I did not want devolution to occur in the way that the Bill proposes. However, having taken account of last September's referendum result, I have said that my party and I intend to try to ensure that devolution works in a way that does not further undermine the United Kingdom. My case today is that there is an enormous hole, or vacuum, in the Bill, which, unless we find some way of filling it, will not only lower the status of the House but endanger the settlement throughout the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the answer was federalism. I do not find it easy to see how a balance can be created in the light of the Bill. It is hard to see how that can be done, given that the duties of groups of MPs from different parts of the UK will inevitably vary widely after devolution. There are no simple solutions—at least, I have seen none so far—that do not risk further anomalies and unfairness.
The Government's policy of regionalisation in England—which is, as far as I know, their only response to the West Lothian question—does not resolve the problem, because it fails to address the fundamental legislative imbalance that lies at the heart of that question.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically coy. If the Conservative and Unionist party, of which he is the senior constitutional affairs spokesman, cannot think of any way in which to deal with the problems that it thinks are being created by the Bill—or the knock-on effects in Wales—Sir Malcolm Rifkind is presumably wasting his time in chairing a think tank that is supposed to be coming up with a bold, imaginative solution.

Mr. Ancram: On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may think that his question was slightly illogical. I am not sure whether he was here during our last debate; I was one of the few who managed to speak, which is why I do not want to take too much time today. I went through the options then, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will rehearse some of them again. I pointed out that, while each case had attractions, there were also flaws. I said that, although those pieces had to be on the board, so that we could examine them and see how they played, there might be other pieces that we had not yet examined. The committee chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, among others, may produce answers that have not yet been thought of. That is why we need this debate, and why we will not be silenced.
I hope that, if a committee or independent review is set up to take evidence from Members of Parliament and constitutional experts the length and breadth of the land, it will come up with recommendations that will resolve the problem. In the current circumstances, that is the right way to proceed.
If the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) had been here last time, he would have heard other solutions debated. They have not changed, and some of my hon. Friends still argue that Bills should be designated for the exclusive attention of English Members. That has its merits, but it would create two categories of Member of Parliament within the UK Parliament. I am told by constitutionalists that that would undermine the constitutional nature of Parliament. Others will press the case for an extended English Grand Committee; others again will call for an English Parliament. Those ideas have their merits, but when we examine them closely, we find anomalies and imbalances.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that some solutions to his problem are yet to be propounded, but is that not the fault of his party, which for 18 years presided over Scotland with a minority Government, knowing that there was a demand for constitutional change, yet making no effort whatever to come up with any solutions?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I should have a solution to a question that is not of my making. I would not have started from here. The Bill is the reason that we have this problem. I have argued over and again that it should be not for us but for the Government to produce the answers and solutions to the constitutional vacuums. It is because they have abdicated their responsibility to do so that we are having to do it for them.
It is vital in this process that we look at all the options, examine them and debate them fully. Each has its attraction, but none of those attractions is untrammelled. There is much more thinking to be done if we are not to replace one imbalance just with another.
For a start, any sustainable solution must take account of certain elements: the respective duties and responsibilities of the various national groups of Members of Parliament and the limitations that devolution will impose on them; the number of constituents that those Members represent; the comparative work load that they will notionally be required to undertake; the acceptability of the roles that they might be asked to perform within a United Kingdom Parliament; and the maintenance of the link between representation and taxation. Those will almost certainly vary from English Member to Scottish Member to Welsh Member to Northern Irish Member, but any fair answer must address them. A United Kingdom Parliament where those elements are not faced will remain unbalanced and unstable. We need to find ways in which to restore that balance.

Mr. Ian Davidson: If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in taking account of work load, does he intend to ensure that those hon. Members, particularly from his party, who have several outside jobs will in some way have either their salaries or responsibilities diminished, and that those Labour Members whose sole job is being a Member of Parliament will be rewarded?

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us where his hon. Friends are this afternoon and what they are doing. During this important debate on an important constitutional issue, it is extraordinary that the Labour Benches are empty.
This thought was put into my mind by a comment from the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who very early in these debates said that he had worked out that the work load of a Scottish Member in this House would be cut by about two thirds as a result of devolution. That is something of which account has to be taken.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not allow the opportunity to pass without remarking that there are only seven Labour Back Benchers in the House.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for making that point. What is even more extraordinary—I am looking around quickly—is that I cannot see a single English Labour Member. Where are the voices of the north-east, who are so vociferous about devolution's effects on their area? Has Millbank tower given instructions that English Members should be kept

away from a debate that touches on English and United Kingdom matters? It will certainly be a matter for comment in their constituencies when the question is asked: where were they when the effect of devolution on their constituencies was debated, and when the vote was taken?
The new clause suggests that we should try to achieve this balance in a non-partisan and agreed way. The Secretary of State may find it very difficult to be non-partisan, but, at the moment, I am not sure that his partisanship is necessarily scoring many runs in Scotland. The new clause seeks to put this problem to an independent body to consider and to report back to the House before the die is finally cast and it is too late. Its remit should be to examine simply the respective roles and responsibilities of Members of Parliament from all four parts of a devolved United Kingdom and to recommend answers that would maximise fairness of representation, while minimising disparity of power. That would meet the imbalance of the English dimension at least.
There are many other imbalances, some affecting England, others Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Those, too, will need addressing, but not in this new clause. We may reach some on Report next week and beyond. Some imbalances may have to await the scrutiny of another place, but they will have to be dealt with.
Conservative Members did not seek devolution, but we are Unionists and will work to preserve the Union within the new devolved constitutional landscape. We will not allow the corrosion of nationalism further to unbundle the United Kingdom.
We may well have to redefine our Unionism to meet the new context. We must give new life to the concepts of partnership, of sharing problems and the means to meet them, and of strengthened unity—all of which are so essential to the Union, and all of which are so undermined by the Bill.
We must develop the dynamic and the will to sustain the United Kingdom itself. Ultimately, we must be able again to be proud of being Scottish and British, English and British, Welsh and British and Northern Irish and British. We have to renew that spirit of mutual respect upon which that is based. Although our new clause may be only a small part, it is a start in that process.
The Government, in their funk, have lost the plot in the fight to protect and sustain the Union—but the Opposition have not, and we never will.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) just now used the phrase "unbundling of the United Kingdom". I am sure that he would confirm that that phrase was coined, and constantly repeated, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in the debates on Welsh devolution. Those who heard my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) in those debates will know exactly the entire background to the phrase "unbundling of the United Kingdom"—or, as some others have called it, "the de-wiring of the United Kingdom". I fear that that is what it is about. Above everything else, I fear the slow-burning candle of English nationalism.
The current parliamentary arithmetic—which is part of the problem—of the House disguises the whole problem in the short term. A majority of 179 is so large that it is


inconceivable that 72 Scottish Members will ever hold the balance in a Commons vote. However, that is not an excuse for doing nothing about a latent constitutional problem. Instead of waiting for a crisis, we should do our best to face up to it now, because there will come a time when it is no longer sustainable for Scots Members of Parliament to vote on exclusively English Bills.

Mr. Davidson: Nonsense.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not nonsense; it is the reality of the situation. My hon. Friend will no doubt catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make his case on why he thinks that what I have said is wrong.
In parliamentary terms, I am a bit grizzly and ancient. Nevertheless, I remember very well the period 1964–66, when the incoming Wilson Government had a majority first of five, soon—with Patrick Gordon Walker's by-election—to be whittled down to three. I remember also the period 1974–79.
In such circumstances, the position of Scottish Members of Parliament—as they will be under the Bill—will become a matter of maximum controversy. One has only to remember the bitter things that my own Front Bench—Harold Wilson, in particular—had to say, rightly, when it came to steel nationalisation, the defections of Desmond Donnelly and Woodrow Wyatt and the position of the Irish. Given parliamentary arithmetic, what Harold Wilson had to say about the Irish will, sooner or later, apply in certain circumstances.
The truth is that an arbitrary cut in numbers of Scots Members of Parliament does not resolve the dilemma. There is an urgent constitutional question facing post-devolutionary Britain, and it is one that all of us, not least the Scots Members of Parliament, must face. It is, how is England to be governed now that the unitary state is to be fundamentally transformed? After the passing of the Bill, England is no longer, if it ever was, coterminous with the United Kingdom. If domestic affairs are to be devolved to Holyrood, some legislative entity is going to have to emerge in England to fill the vacuum left by Scottish home rule. It is important that the Scots make that point.
The situation cannot be ignored any longer. The English dimension is now on the political agenda. It is not at all satisfactory that all this should have been done within the Scottish Office, because the last time around it was done within the Cabinet Office, and that was rather a different kettle of fish.

Mr. Hogg: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument, with which I agree, with considerable care. He has stated, quite rightly, that there is an implication for the constitution of the United Kingdom in how England is to be governed, but is there not also an implication for the party structure in the United Kingdom, in the sense that there is going to have to be a considerable gap between—the hon. Gentleman used the example of his party, but it applies equally to mine—the Labour party in Scotland and the Labour party in England and the Labour party in Wales? Their interests

are not going to be identical; indeed, they may end up arguing among themselves, so we may be looking at the fragmentation of the party structure.

Mr. Dalyell: One of the things that I have learnt from the whole question of devolution is that one should not give snap answers off the top of one's head. I mean no discourtesy to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but before giving any serious answer to his question, I shall have to look in Hansard to see exactly what he said and then reflect on it. Once one gets involved in devolution, it is as well to be extremely cautious because it is by giving snap, instant answers that one often gets into the greatest difficulty. Indeed, it may have been snap, instant answers in the mid-1970s that created many of the problems that we subsequently faced.
Paradoxically—this point does relate to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question—the only country in the United Kingdom which does not now have, or which from May 1999 onwards will not have, its own government is England, and therein lies a problem.
The self-evident problem becomes acute when a Government party has to depend on its favourable majority in Scotland to get its English business through the House of Commons. I shall leave the question in shorthand—it will be asked, how come whoever is the Member of Parliament for Linlithgow or Livingston can vote, and vote decisively, on policy in relation to Liverpool or London, on matters on which not only English but Scottish Members of Parliament cannot trespass? Unless clause 27 is operated differently from the way in which we have been led to believe it will operate, that remains a problem. That is the old, so-called West Lothian question, which I need not go into in this regard because it has become familiar.
Coupled with that is another problem, which unfortunately was not discussed because of the guillotine on clause 33 but which is relevant to this debate. It is the position of the Secretary of State, or whoever occupies that position. One of the major perceived advantages given to Scotland in the current system is the presence in the Cabinet of a senior Minister directly concerned to defend Scotland's interests. The Secretary of State's practical authority among his Cabinet colleagues has derived essentially from the Executive responsibility that he shoulders as head of the Scottish Office.
The more those responsibilities are reduced by the devolution settlement, the less standing the Secretary of State can have as anything other than a strictly irresponsible "more or better for Scotland" campaigner. If the Scottish Office has no Executive responsibilities—as the stance noted in paragraph 18 of the White Paper implies—whoever is Secretary of State is nothing but such a campaigner and a repository, megaphone whipping-boy for all the Scottish Assembly's grumbles against Westminster and Whitehall, and those grumbles will be manifest. It cannot in the long run be sensible or acceptable to non-Scottish viewpoints as a basis for a seat in the Cabinet. Nor can a substantial role sensibly be created, as paragraph 4.14 of Cmnd. 3658 seems to imply, by designating such a Secretary of State and a small supporting staff as a prime channel or bottleneck of communication on substantive issues between London and Edinburgh. The London interlocutor must surely be whichever Department is responsible for the particular subject.
Frankly, I believe that whoever is Secretary of State will find herself or himself in the position of Oliver Twist and in a girning position that will create maximum irritation. Any Prime Minister in Downing street will want to deal with the Prime Minister of the Holyroodhouse Parliament and not the Secretary of State in London. That issue really has to be addressed in terms of what is advantageous or unadvantageous for Scotland.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is it not possible that the situation would be exacerbated by circumstances such as those that prevail at present when the entire Treasury team, including the Chancellor and his second in command, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, represent Scottish seats and sit in what basically will be an English Parliament deciding on funding matters for Scotland?

Mr. Dalyell: I attended the revealing and interesting Friday debate when the hon. Lady—in my opinion justifiably and legitimately—introduced a Bill proposing an English Parliament. I hate referring to previous speeches, but many hon. Members wish to speak. I was able to speak at some length that Friday morning and I stick to every word that is printed in Hansard. There is a real problem inherent in her question.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my hon. Friend accept that the proposal by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is absolutely preposterous as it is perfectly clear that Treasury business will be a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament and will not be devolved, therefore it would be ludicrous to exclude Scottish Members from being involved in such decisions?

Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is that Scottish Members will be highly dependent on the actions of those people in Great George street. I do not know whether or not he will speak, but it might be very revealing to hear what the former Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has to say on those matters. There would be great difficulties, not only if there were an overall Labour Government with a Conservative majority in England, but if there were a Conservative Government in Britain and a Labour Government in Scotland. In addition, I say with total friendliness to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) that he should not imagine that the difficulties would be much less if both Governments were of the same party because those in Holyroodhouse will certainly need a reason for not being able to fulfil the massive expectations that have been aroused. It is human political nature to blame someone else, so, being human, they will say, "We would have mended your roads or done this for schools or reduced waiting lists, except that we do not get the resources from those parsimonious people at the Treasury in Great George street."

Mr. Savidge: Do I take it that my hon. Friend would therefore consider abolishing all local councils for the same reason?

Mr. Dalyell: The fact that my hon. Friend equates this matter with the position of local authorities reveals volumes about his thinking. The answer is no.
The problem goes deeper. One aspect of the so-called West Lothian question that has been forgotten over 20 years is that the problem goes beyond voting on exclusively English legislation. One cannot escape from an equal, if not more serious, dilemma. The problem is not that of an occasional vote on legislation; it is that Scots Members with no responsibility for such matters could easily—and probably will—sooner or later determine the political colour of the English Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Health, the English housing Minister and the English Home Secretary.
Let us not delude ourselves that, in the circumstances created by the Bill, with a Labour Government overall and a majority of English Members that is either Conservative or Conservative and Liberal, the slow fuse of English nationalism would not be ignited. Having voted, rightly or wrongly—wrongly, as I would think, but rightly, as others might think—by a majority for a party different from that with an overall majority in the United Kingdom, people in England would ask why Members of Parliament who had no responsibility for matters relating to them—or, incidentally, for matters relating to the Scottish electorate who elected them—should determine the political complexion of the Secretaries of State heading the great spending Departments of Government. That situation cannot continue. There is no escape from a position in which the political colour of the head of a spending Department, dealing with English health, education and local government, can be imposed by hon. Members for Scotland.
The position now is, as it has always been—devolution in anything resembling the form in which it is proposed is a staging post, a halfway house, or a springboard to something else. Liberal Democrat Members think that it will lead to federalism—I see them nodding, so I am not distorting their position. Scottish National party Members think, as I do, that this is a paving Bill—I see them also nodding—towards the dissolution of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Independence."] It is coming to that. That, rightly or wrongly, is what I think.
How long can this last? How long can the Bill endure? Of course it will endure for this Parliament, given the parliamentary arithmetic, and it may well endure for the next Parliament. If we are to take the Bill seriously, we must think about the long term. The Bill is not a settlement. The deal must not be seen by the English majority, at the outset or as experience builds up, as giving Scotland one-sided privileges and advantages of an unacceptable kind or scale. Unless that condition is met, there is no chance of the Bill enduring in the form that those who proposed it presumably hope that it will endure. Carrying on as before is simply not an option. An ancient Labour Member of Parliament must warn his colleagues—although they have not exactly exuded gratitude for this—that, come May 1999, some of us will not he able to bring ourselves to vote on matters that are exclusively English and over which we shall have no control.

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dalyell: Not for the moment; I must be brief.


If we are facing a break-up, and either federalism or independence is decisively what people want, so be it. If Scotland is to be a separate country from England in the European Community—I admit that that is a point of view—at least we better know about it.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dalyell: No.
If people in Scotland do not want such a situation, they ought to have one last opportunity to say so. I believe—it is not up to me, and I shall be doubly unpopular for saying this—that the other place, as a revising Chamber, has a responsibility in this matter to reflect on whether there should be, as I think there should, a post-legislative referendum. It should be on the question: "Are you sure that you want a Scottish Parliament, with the inevitable consequence that Scotland either becomes part of a federal set up or becomes an independent country?"
Whether one likes it or not, that is the reality that we face. People in Scotland ought to be allowed to make up their minds. The pre-legislative referendum seemed a very cunning device, but as people wake up to the reality of the choice, they may find that that choice is a little different. We must bend our minds on whether they should at least be given that choice.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) correctly anticipated, Liberal Democrats see the Bill as part of a developmental process for a re-casting of the United Kingdom constitution and the entire role of Westminster. I shall address our preferred option of federalism in that context later.
I speak as one who has an on-going personal interest, not just for the remainder of this Parliament but, God and the electorate willing, in future Parliaments, in serving in Westminster as a Scottish Member of Parliament post-devolution. I say that in terms of personal interest, but not in a personalised way about the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It is significant that the new clause does not even reveal any potential further developments or solutions, despite being very heavy on analysis of the problem, as the Conservative and Unionist parties see it.
The new clause is also significant given the role of the right hon. Member for Devizes in Scottish as well as United Kingdom politics since 1983, when I entered the House. He must carry, along with several of his colleagues from the 1980s in particular and into the 1990s, a very heavy responsibility for part of the problem about which he is now so fixated—much of which others and I think could have been averted if the Conservative Government had had the sensitivity, sense and, ultimately, the self-interest to realise that they had to appeal and respond much more to the growing sense of frustration in Scotland. The Scots voted consistently against not just the Government in power but the style of government and the substance of policy that was increasingly being imposed in a heavy-handed and arrogant way on Scotland.
In the previous roles of the right hon. Member for Devizes, both as chairman of the Scottish Tory party and then as a Minister in the Scottish Office, I remember him

on many occasions arguing to a standstill with the massed ranks of opposition—which, in those days, comprised Labour, the Scottish National party and the Alliance—that, having examined, for example, the method of local government finance in Scotland, there was absolutely no conceivable practical alternative to the poll tax. Although the Scots were clearly dead against it, it had to be imposed because nothing else could be done.
The Tories all had to change their tune a few years later when there was a leadership change and, suddenly, that was no longer the appropriate script. That kind of approach began to sow the seeds which led to the Conservative party's downfall, and that is why it is so difficult to take seriously the analysis of the right hon. Gentleman today.

Mr. James Gray: I should declare an interest, in that I stood against the hon. Gentleman in Ross, Cromarty and Skye in 1992. If what he says is correct, and if the people of Scotland were so massively opposed to the Conservative party, why was the largest swing in the UK against the Liberal Democrats in Ross, Cromarty and Skye? The swing was 5.6 per cent. and the hon. Gentleman lost 5,000 votes to the Conservative party. Why?

Mr. Kennedy: You might bring me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I entertained the House with tales of the 1992 Ross, Cromarty and Skye general election campaign. Suffice to say that it is both pleasant and significant to see the hon. Gentleman representing his present constituency, because there was never a snowball's chance in hell that he would ever represent mine.

Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about Ross, Cromarty and Skye or the new clause, but I would be interested to find out.

5 pm

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the effect of our policies in the past 18 years on our standing in Scotland. I wonder whether he could explain why, given his views and his party's policies—which he believes are so attractive to the people of Scotland—he and his party are standing below us in the opinion polls today.

Mr. Kennedy: The proof of the pudding, and the comparative popularity of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, will be revealed in 12 months. If I were the right hon. Gentleman. I would not hold my breath about coming third in the election.
Despite the high-minded tone of the right hon. Gentleman, what the Tories are up to with the new clause and their argument is typical of the Tory party throughout history—adopting, in an apparently moral stance, a concern for the wider Union, the empire or whatever. It is all dressed up in that way because it is nothing but naked, belligerent and opportunistic self-interest.
If anything brings home that fact, it is that, between 1992 and 1997—and a fat lot of good it did the Tory party—the previous Secretary of State for Scotland,


the arch-Unionist himself, based his entire strategy, and was quite open about it, on trying to talk up the Scottish National party, the supposed deepest foes of any Unionist party, because he hoped to split the vote and, by default, recapture seats here and there which, under first-past-the-post politics, he knew would not otherwise be open to persuasion in the Conservative interest.
All I can say is that one cannot put forward an argument and table a new clause to the Bill on the Floor of the House and present oneself as an arch-Unionist while being willing to run with the hounds and hares of nationalism for self-interested reasons. That was the approach of Michael Forsyth then, and that is why the argument of the Tories now is vacuous.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is making it up.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman should go and talk to Michael Forsyth, as many of us did throughout that period. Michael Forsyth was under no illusions about what he was up to.

Mr. Jenkin: I know Michael Forsyth—he is a friend of mine. It is slightly odd for the hon. Gentleman to caricature his campaign as Secretary of State for Scotland—when he was constantly warning against the dangers of nationalism—as somehow aiding and abetting nationalism. If that is the topsy-turvy logic that the hon. Gentleman is using in the debate, he is running away from the truth—not us.

Mr. Kennedy: I shall not dwell further on history. Suffice to say that Michael Forsyth was warning against nationalism, of course, but he was also talking it up and trying to give it a focus in that campaign because he thought that, if he could polarise the debate into a choice between Conservatism and Unionism or nationalism, he would win. The Scottish people were not taken in—we are a good deal more sophisticated and subtle about recognising that there is a range of options. I shall turn to those.
First, this entire House is a range of historic inconsistencies. Hon. Members have only to look at the role of Irish Members earlier this century, when precisely the dangers or difficulties alluded to in West Lothianism were the order of the day.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right about that, but in the days of Stormont there were far fewer Unionist Members of Parliament for the Province in the House than their population justified.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes; but, with the reimposition of direct rule, there were subsequent changes under the Callaghan Administration to take account of that fact and, indeed, such provisions are included in the proposed legislation. We have long since accepted that. Once we have Scottish devolution, at an appropriate juncture there will have to be a re-evaluation—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Where?"] It is in the legislation. There will have to be a re-evaluation of the basis on which Scottish Members are sent to Westminster. Of course, that will have a logical sequential effect on the number of Scottish Members sent to Westminster. I think that that accounts for the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Historic inconsistency has been a recurrent feature of this place. If one were to start with a blank sheet of paper and draw up a constitution for the United Kingdom today, I doubt whether one would begin with something with the shape and substance of what we have. At least those who are engaged in that process in Scotland and Wales have a terrific opportunity. If one were drawing up a basis for operating a Parliament, as they are doing—considering potential Standing Orders and procedures, how to go about legislation and all the rest of it—one would not adopt the procedures that have been imposed on us in this place, as they hardly take into account how a modern and multifaceted democracy such as ours, with different nation states involved, should be structured.

Dr. Godman: On the inconsistencies, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, sooner or later, we would be faced with a choice between the break-up of the United Kingdom and setting up a federal United Kingdom. In the meantime, how would he deal with the inconsistencies that characterise this place?

Mr. Kennedy: I shall be happy to come to that matter in a moment.
The final weakness of the argument put by the Conservatives at the beginning of the debate is that, despite all that period in office and all the great thinking that apparently went on about the different constitutional options, the one practical proposal that they came up with to deal with the anomalies, frustrations and shortcomings of the political system and the business of political administration was called "taking stock" and, as far as any of us who were involved in it can recall, it simply involved turning the Scottish Grand Committee into a rolling roadshow.
The Scottish people were not taken in by that either. As the then Secretary of State discovered to his increasing misfortune, once they had realised that the Committee need not merely be an opportunity for some pump-priming or pulpit politics from the Secretary of State in different parts of Scotland, it became a much bigger opportunity, from Stornoway to Selkirk, for some of the largest demonstrations against the Conservative Government, so the whole thing ended up backfiring in their faces. The inadequacy of the Conservative party in and out of office in trying to produce practical solutions to tackle those genuine political problems has been a great difficulty indeed.
What of the role of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster after the devolutionary settlement and further into the life of the Scottish, and indeed the Welsh, Parliaments? I do not know how others react, but I am amused by those occasional newspaper accounts of how Westminster Members of Parliament from Scotland and from Wales—and presumably from Northern Ireland, too, if an assembly is established there—will become part-time. Anyone who has tried to fulfil both Scottish and United Kingdom roles in party politics as well as in institutionalised Westminster politics will testify to the contradictions, conflicts and frustrations that can arise. I think that people will accept that, if politicians have


more time in which to do their job, they will be able to work in a more informed and detailed way, which will make for better representation at both levels.

Mr. David Maclean: What about the rest of us?

Mr. Kennedy: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to be overburdened either, as I care about his welfare. I hope that, in due course, he will be the beneficiary of an evolved system under which he can perform his role more efficiently and effectively—we all know that, under the present Westminster system, there is inefficiency and ineffectiveness.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman's argument is facile, as he knows. He looks forward to the day when the 500 English Members will have as little to do—and be as genuinely idle—as those Scottish Members who will be sent to Westminster after devolution and who will have very few subjects with which to deal. That is not a good enough answer to the West Lothian question.

Mr. Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman hails from my constituency—he comes from the Black isle, a place that is associated with sound logic. If he thinks about the sound logic of what he is saying and what I am saying, he will realise that it surely makes sense from a reformist point of view to want a United Kingdom House of Commons to operate more efficiently and more effectively for all Members from all parts of that United Kingdom. The Bill represents a significant improvement for those of us who represent constituencies in the Scottish nation. Other parts of the United Kingdom will now have to address their different concerns, paramount among which is what will happen in England.
I have no great ambition, post-Scottish devolution, to cast a vote in the Division Lobbies of the House of Commons on specifically English legislative matters. A system will have to evolve that can take account of the fact that the democratic deficit in the United Kingdom will be most manifest in England. England will have to resolve that in one of several ways: English Members may want to meet as a specifically English Parliament; the best way forward for the predominant partner in the United Kingdom in terms of population may be to move in a more federal direction; or there may need to be a specifically English Grand Committee. The House of Commons will have to be a good deal more open minded and constructive in finding a solution for England than the Conservative party has been in its attitude to Scottish and Welsh devolution.

Mr. Hogg: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has said that he does not want to vote on exclusively English business. Will he associate himself with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in stating that, after the Bill is enacted and the Scottish Parliament has become operational, he will not vote on English business? May I take it that the hon. Gentleman and other Scottish Liberal Democrat Members will not vote on English business when there is a Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Kennedy: No. I chose my words with care and was being quite frank. I have no ambition—I do not think

that, in due course, other Scottish Members will have, either—to vote on English matters after a set of constitutional arrangements has evolved that makes sense of the anomalies across the United Kingdom.
I find the new clause almost offensive in its supposition, which is an historic mistake, that, because a solution is being fashioned to a set of problems in the United Kingdom—or two sets of problems, if we include Wales—the way in which to deal with outstanding problems affecting England is to turn the guns on those who have made progress towards resolving the anomalies under which they suffer. That is not an appropriate way forward.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's last comment. I invite him to tell the House to what in the new clause he objects as part of the evolving process of which he has said he approves.

Mr. Kennedy: The new clause focuses on the continuing role, responsibilities, duties, performance and contribution of Members of Parliament representing only one part of the United Kingdom—Scotland. Surely it would be far better to focus on the part of the United Kingdom where outstanding problems will genuinely present themselves—across England.
I do not know the solution to the English question. Some Labour Members have mooted the possibility of more regionalism in England—indeed, we are seeing the first signs of that. Perhaps there will be an English Parliament. I strongly suspect that, in the context of a developing European Union, the only way in which to make sense of this entire patchwork is a federal United Kingdom, in which there are specified powers and responsibilities at each tier of representation, and the Westminster Parliament operates federally on items of United Kingdom business that truly carry repercussions and legislative implications across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England—irrespective of whether England is unitary or made up of the regions. That would be a far better approach than the one suggested in the new clause. Moreover, we should not talk down the on-going parliamentary role of United Kingdom Members of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke about conflict, and there have been many predictions of a battleground inevitably opening up between Edinburgh and London. I do not doubt that there will be tensions—practical politics suggests that there will be—or that there will be political conflicts from time to time. However, a much more immediate and perhaps more telling source of tension and conflict may be within Scotland itself-between the various local authorities and the Edinburgh legislative body. In many ways, I hope that that is so, as it may encourage greater autonomy in different parts of Scotland on such subjects as local income tax or whether there should be proportional representation in elections to local authorities.
As the Secretary of State knows, Liberal Democrats welcome the recognition, in the White Paper and in the Bill, that the role of the Secretary of State will not only be highly diminished but—I think that the White Paper acknowledges this—in due course wither on the vine. We also welcome the recognition that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament will have to be reduced.


As has been said, the role of the political parties will also change. Liberal Democrats have experience of that, as our party already operates federally. The relationships between London, Cardiff, Edinburgh and elsewhere across the political parties will become significantly different. That will bring fresh problems, but it will also mean that politics as a whole will have a far less top-down approach than under the current unitary and centralised system.
It is surely good that, after devolution, UK Ministers will have fewer territorial responsibilities and so will have to behave with greater regional sensitivities, both within England and to the different political cultures that will then be fully apparent in Scotland and in Wales.
We acknowledge that there are further problems. This is, to coin a phrase, very much unfinished business, in the sense that, even when the Bill is enacted and the Scottish Parliament is up and running, there will be a serious job for the House of Commons to do on a United Kingdom basis in examining its structures and procedures and the roles and inputs of Members of Parliament from different parts of the country.
Some have argued consistently that this Parliament will not have a real, on-going role, but I believe that that is a wrong analysis. Those of us who hope in due course to contribute to the workings of the House under the new, devolved procedures look forward with considerable relish to doing so. Any problems could not be adequately addressed by the new clause or by the general approach of Conservative Members, so we shall certainly not join them in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I welcome this debate on the West Lothian question. Some people latch on to the question as a rationalisation of their unremitting hostility to any constitutional change, but the issue none the less needs to be debated and clarified.
I make it clear at the outset that I am perfectly relaxed about asymmetric devolution, which is practised in many countries; if asymmetry is regarded as an anomaly, hon. Members should reflect on the anomalies that already exist and are probably inherent in the Union of four nations of greatly different sizes.
I read the new clause with interest. It reminded me of the description by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), of Scottish Members of Parliament after devolution as ships lost in the fog. I have thought about it a great deal, and it occurs to me that the functions of Scottish Members here after devolution will not be all that different. The simple reality is that great areas will be reserved—the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) seemed to forget that they would be reserved—including defence, foreign affairs, social security and the Treasury.
Interested as Labour Members are in Scottish affairs, the opportunities to scrutinise and debate them in the House are negligible. What will be different after devolution? Apart from Scottish questions once a month—there could even be an argument for keeping them—little time is spent scrutinising Scottish affairs in the House. The first anomaly of the present situation is that Scottish affairs are devolved to the Scottish Office, but there is no time to scrutinise them in the House.
With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), this is not a unitary state, but a Union of four nations. For 100 years, the equivalent of nine Whitehall Ministries have been devolved to the Scottish Office. The core argument for the Bill is that it is about good government for Scotland. Some of us cannot wait to have a parliament in which we can talk about the health service, housing, local government and other issues in Scotland—all matters which have been devolved.
We have to force ourselves to be patient when we hear Conservative Members speaking about future scenarios, because we remember that from 1979 to 1997, all the affairs of the Scottish Office were run by a party that was voted against in Scotland at general election after general election. That is a far greater anomaly than the so-called West Lothian question.
For 18 years, English Members imposed their will against the views of the people of Scotland, but in the whole of this century, there have been only two years—from October 1964 to March 1966 and from February to October in 1974—when there was any possibility of Scottish Members imposing their views on the House; and that will become even less likely when, as I hope will happen, the United Kingdom Parliament changes to a proportional representation system.

Mr. Edward Gamier: On the basis of the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, presumably he regrets the fact that the previous Labour Government had any influence whatever on arrangements in Northern Ireland. There are no Labour Members in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chisholm: I am not sure what point the hon. and learned Gentleman is making.

Mr. Gamier: I thought that my point was simple. The hon. Gentleman is complaining that, for 18 years, his country, Scotland, was dominated by the Government formed by a Conservative party that, he correctly claimed, did not have a majority in that country. To follow the logic of that point, he must accept that Labour, both now and when it was previously in government, could have no business interfering in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chisholm: Northern Ireland is to get its form of devolution as well. My point is that, whatever system of government we have for a Union of four nations, there will be some anomalies. I am pointing out the anomaly of the past 18 years and asking Conservative Members to weigh it against the anomaly that they describe. I am quite prepared to accept that what they are going to talk about for the next five hours is, indeed, an anomaly, but it is less of an anomaly than what we have had for the past 18 years, because the prospect of English Members of Parliament imposing their views on Scotland is many times greater than that of the Scottish majority imposing their views on England.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: A constitutional settlement that lasted for 290 years, until last November, established that we were a body corporate: what affected one of us, affected all of us; the concern of one of us was the concern of all of us. The Government decided to change that arrangement and to disband the unitary state. They are groping towards a new constitution


in which there is a serious anomaly. That is an entirely different situation from the anomaly that the hon. Gentleman described.

Mr. Chisholm: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but my point is that it is a different kind of anomaly. There is an asymmetry inherent in the fact that a large nation, called England, is joined with three smaller nations, called Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Because England is so big, there is far more likelihood of the scenario that we had from 1979 to 1997 arising than the scenario that forms the main theme of Conservative Members' speeches. The hon. Gentleman is simplifying the position. There is no symmetry inherent in the present situation. He is also wrong, in that we do not have a unitary state. He has reinforced my point about the anomalies of having devolution without scrutiny and of having English Members imposing their views on Scotland.
We have lived with anomalies for 100 years, and Conservative Members have lived with them because they believe in the Union. The real question is whether they are prepared to put up with an anomaly that is no greater than the anomalies that we have grown used to over the past 100 years.

Mr. Grieve: I do not understand that last point. Why should we as Unionists put up with an anomaly that can and should be addressed as part of the total constitutional package that goes with Scottish devolution?

Mr. Chisholm: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he will give his answer to the West Lothian question. The interesting thing about that question is the fact that most people who ask it have no intention of giving an answer; they ask it only because they think that there is no answer. I am glad that the wider section of the Conservative party is engaging with the question.
Many countries have asymmetric devolution. Spain is most often cited and provides the most interesting example. Different regions of Spain have varying degrees of devolution, yet they all come together in their central Parliament to discuss Spanish issues. First, if Spain and many other countries can live with that, it cannot be so incredible and anomalous. I shall listen to what people say; they can have objections, but it is a perfectly defensible and normal constitutional framework.
Secondly, the decision is up to the House. If the House in its wisdom decides that it wants to devolve certain matters to certain areas—some to Northern Ireland, some to Wales, some to Scotland and, in due course, some to the regions of England, it can live with what it has decided.

Mr. Grieve: Matters have moved on slightly since I first tried to intervene, so I shall adjust my question. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the creation of the United Kingdom was the coming together of two sovereign independent states, and that the change proposed is different from the situation in Spain, where there are regions? This is a matter of two sovereign states, and the unbundling comes through addressing the requirements of one without addressing the requirements of the other.

Mr. Chisholm: That is an interesting point, but I would turn that argument against the hon. Gentleman and say that if such a system works in Spain, where there are regions, so much more should a party that is supposed to believe in the Union have respect for the separate nations of the United Kingdom.
I come back to the idea that the key determinant of the future of the settlement lies with the official Opposition rather than, as some now assume, with the Scottish National party. Notwithstanding the polls in Scotland, about which much has been said, I do not believe that they show such a high level of support for independence.
The argument will continue between devolution and independence, but I believe that the future of the Union will be determined by the attitude of the Conservative party to the settlement more than by anything else. I am glad to see that in Scotland, many of the wiser voices of Conservatism have decided that as devolution is what the Scottish people want, they will come together to make the settlement work. That is the Unionist voice of the Conservative and Unionist party.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow reminded us, the real danger is English nationalism—although it does not seem to me that it is out there now. Obviously, I do not know England as well as some Conservative Members do, but all the polls and all the evidence suggest that people in England are relaxed about the constitutional settlement. A great burden therefore rests on the Conservative party not to fan the flames of English nationalism. The main threat is the danger of English nationalism in the House making the settlement in Scotland unstable.

Mr. Grieve: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me once more; I shall not intervene again. Does he agree that it would be tremendously helpful, especially in view of what he has said about people being tranquil and relaxed about the proposals, if some of his English hon. Friends would come and participate in the debate, and engage in discussion to convince us of that fact?

Mr. Chisholm: As reference has been made to the number of Labour Members here, I shall take the opportunity to explain that several Select Committees, including the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, are sitting at this moment, which may explain why some of my hon. Friends are not here.

Dr. Liam Fox: Does that explain why not one English Labour Member has taken part in the discussion of the Bill from Second Reading until now?

Mr. Chisholm: Various points have been made by the Opposition, and different interpretations of them can be made. In a sense, what the hon. Gentleman says backs up my contention that my English colleagues are not getting weighty mailbags suggesting that their constituents are concerned. That is another reason why the onus is on the Opposition to behave responsibly and to behave as Unionists, rather than as English nationalists, on the question.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a little ludicrous for hon. Gentlemen to


talk about our unbundling two nations that were joined together, as if they had come together voluntarily? He must have a distorted view of history. The Act of Union with Wales came about as a result of the English having conquered Wales. The idea that devolution is creating English nationalism is ludicrous too. English nationalism has always existed. Many people in this country, especially Conservative Members of Parliament, rarely talk about Great Britain; they always talk about England.

Mr. Chisholm: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I would like to draw my remarks to a close—

Mr. Andrew Robathan: rose—

Mr. Chisholm: —but I shall take one more intervention.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has talked about fanning the flames of English nationalism. I have always considered myself British, and always talk about being British rather than being English. It is the people of Scotland, especially the Scottish nationalists, who have fanned the flames of Scottish nationalism. My constituents do not understand what will happen yet, but they will. When they discover that Scottish Members of Parliament are telling them how their health service will work, but they can have no influence on the way in which the Scottish health service works, we shall see English nationalism. I shall regret that, and I will not fan its flames, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that what he advocates is leading to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Chisholm: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and no doubt we shall hear those arguments used again. I repeat my argument that that situation would have arisen in only two years during the previous hundred years and is unlikely to arise again—although clearly it is possible. Moreover, that anomaly must be balanced against the other anomalies that I have described.

Mr. Gray: Is it not true that between 1974 and 1979, we would have had a Conservative Government had it not been for the Scottish Members in this place?

Mr. Chisholm: I think that somebody else has the exact figures, but my understanding is that that applies only to the early part of that Labour Government—and I repeat the point about proportional representation.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talked about a Union between two independent nations, but I seem to recall reading that at the time, Daniel Defoe called the Union a marriage of convenience. Perhaps marriages have come under certain strains in recent years. Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are ignoring the fact that the constitutional change is to some extent a reflection of, or a reaction to, the legitimate and honourable aspirations of the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people?

Mr. Chisholm: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Chisholm: I have been trying to finish for the past four interventions, and I shall not take any more.

In conclusion, asymmetric and incremental devolution is a living constitution for our four nations. Let us remember that we are a Union of four nations, and let us not hear any more talk about a unitary state; we have not been that for more than a hundred years, since the formation of the Scottish Office.
The key question tonight is: do the official Opposition want the new settlement to work? I am glad that most Conservatives in Scotland have now come round to that point of view, and I hope that their English colleagues will catch up with them.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) has made an entertaining speech. I was entertained by his contribution, but I was also alarmed by it, because it is obvious that he has come here with a light-hearted approach to constitution making.
What worries me about Labour Members is not when they disagree with our opinions, but when they are incapable of seeing that we have any point of view at all. The hon. Gentleman's reaction is that all that we say is slightly irrelevant, that there is no genuine constitutional point and that the whole of our argument can be answered by accusing the Opposition of being English nationalists who are against devolution. New clause I is a far weightier matter than that and it will not be dismissed in that way, any more than what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says can be dismissed.
I shall anticipate what the hon. Gentleman might reply before he stands up to do so, and say that it is true that for as long as I have been a Member of the House, and a member of the Government as I was until the election of May 1997, I have been an opponent of devolution and a supporter of the United Kingdom Parliament. However, I accept that the Scottish people have decided the question conclusively. I concede that an overwhelming mandate has been given to the present Government to give Scotland its devolved government and parliament, and I come here intending to find a way in which to live in harmony with that Scottish Parliament.
I am an English Conservative and Unionist. It is absurd to dismiss my fears of the Bill and my point of view on the new clause as those of an English nationalist. I am not an English nationalist, and I will not be made into one by the fact that those proposals have come forward. I am not in favour of a federal constitution for the United Kingdom, and I fail to see why I should be converted to the notion of a federal constitution in order to accommodate Scottish Labour Members, who have considerable difficulty in answering the important basic question.
As an English Conservative and Unionist, I believe that it is important that we address the constitutional change in such a way as to determine for all of us that the essential elements of a constitution are in place when we have finished. The first element of a constitution is stability—for a time, until it evolves again. I hate to hear all the talk of the moving picture and where we go next, which seems to be accepted on all sides.
The other important element is constitutional legitimacy for the decisions of Government and the votes of the House, because that is what the enviable stability of the United Kingdom over the past two centuries has


been based on. The passions and votes on the Floor of the House have never led to the legitimacy of decisions of the House of Commons being questioned.
It ill behoves the House to treat this as a Scottish matter that can be lightly dismissed; there is a serious question, which for 20 years nobody has been able to answer. It is called the West Lothian question and we keep going back to it. I am delighted to take part in a debate with the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who first brought the issue to the attention of the House in the late 1970s, when he represented the constituency of West Lothian. No one could answer the question then and its being asked was the first fatal wound inflicted then on the previous attempt to bring about Scottish devolution. One could see that attempt start to decay as the West Lothian question was not addressed and it collapsed because the then Government's parliamentary majority was no longer sustained by Scottish Members of Parliament. Now the West Lothian question is simply being swept away because, for the time being, the party in power has such overwhelming parliamentary arithmetic in its favour that it has decided that it does not want to answer it. Just like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, the Government like to pretend that the question does not exist.

Dr. Godman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the interesting phrase "constitutional legitimacy". Does he agree that the constitutional legitimacy of political institutions is conferred on them by the electorate? What has happened in recent years in Scotland is that the overwhelming majority of the electorate have withdrawn their approval for the constitutional legitimacy of this place. Whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes change or whether he favours stability, we need to examine why the vast majority of the people have withdrawn their approval and therefore that legitimacy from this place.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that, for the same reason that I accept that a Scottish Parliament is something to which the House must now give its consent. I accept that the crushing mandate against us was probably produced by the fact that our continuing resistance to devolution made the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland appear to be an English party. I shall support the efforts of my friend Sir Malcolm Rifkind to give back a Scottish identity to the Conservative and Unionist party.
However, it is not enough to declare that there is a mandate for a Scottish Parliament. The whole of the United Kingdom Parliament must now accommodate itself to that reality, but, within that, it must address the legitimate constitutional fears of those who say that devolution must be put in place without destroying the legitimacy of the British constitution and the legitimacy of all those who sit in the United Kingdom Parliament.
There is another big unanswered question, on which I was tempted to intervene earlier as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I refer to the proposed financial set-up, whereby there will be different levels of income tax north and south of the border, and difficulties relating to the maintenance of the Barnett formula and to the role of the Secretary of State in the Cabinet and his ability to defend

the Barnett formula or anything like it. That is another big issue, albeit out of order in this debate, but it is dwarfed by the issue we are debating today.
We are told that we have to face the fact that there will still be many Scottish Members of Parliament who have no right whatever to vote on Scottish health, Scottish education, Scottish transport, or Scottish housing, but who will have the full right to vote on those matters where they affect England. That goes absolutely to the heart of the willingness of all our constituents to accept the decisions that come out of Parliament as they always have, no matter how bitter the political debate that has lain behind them.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman so exercised about the prospect of Scottish Members of Parliament being able to vote on English affairs that will not affect their constituents, when he and many other right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches were quite prepared to vote to impose on Scotland a poll tax that did not apply to their constituents?

Mr. Clarke: That is the argument that has just been put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith and I regard it as the political knockabout argument. Of course, for 18 years there was a Conservative majority in this place but no Conservative majority in Scotland, and I voted for measures that were opposed by the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament. Similarly, I have served in a Parliament in which I have bitterly opposed the measures adopted by a Labour Government and lost because the Scottish Members of Parliament provided that Government with a majority. I have not looked up the figures so as to be able to be historically precise, but I should be amazed if it were not the case that between 1974 and 1979, when the Conservatives were in opposition. the then Labour Government were sustained by a Scottish majority for a large proportion of the time.
However, at that time, the Government as a whole were answerable to the House; the Scottish block was something for which the Chancellor was accountable to the House; and how the block was allocated was something that the House could discuss. There have been, until now, intricate arrangements between the two parts of the United Kingdom, which ensured that we all accepted that we did not take apart the Division lists, work out the nationality of the constituency represented and seek to question the constitutional authority of the Government of the day to pursue their aims. Those arrangements are being completely taken apart.
5.45 pm
There is an anomaly, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith frankly conceded. It is an anomaly with which the Scottish Members of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament will no longer have to live, but the English public and English Members of Parliament are being told, "You must live with it, because there are more of you and if you look back into our recent history, you will see that you have not been on the receiving end quite so frequently as the Scottish." That may be a good political argument, although I suspect that it goes down better in Edinburgh than in Nottinghamshire,


but it is not a serious contribution to the making of the constitution of a modern industrial state. Rather than answering the question, that argument shows an inability to do so.
I have followed the debates on the Bill, but not spoken until now. However, the longer we go on, the more glad I am to see a new clause that focuses on the fatal flaw in the proposal. Throughout, the Government have offered but one solution: they have said that they will accept that there will be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. That is an advance, because in all the arguments over devolution in the past, I heard many passionate devolutionists argue strongly against the whole idea of reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament; it used to be regarded as an anti-Scottish proposition. However, the Government have moved and offered us some as yet to be determined diminution in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to deal with the peculiarly anomalous situation of their playing a role in English affairs.
The way in which the Government have done that is utterly absurd. When one asks when we are to have that reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament, it transpires that the parliamentary arithmetic determines that the answer is not yet—we must wait for some time before it happens. It is absurd that the Government's sole response is to shelter behind the alleged administrative difficulties of putting that solution into statute and authorising and instructing the boundary commissioners to go ahead. They argue that, for the time being, they must retain more than 70 Scottish Members of Parliament and promise that that number will, at some point in the future, be diminished.
That is not an answer. It is inevitable that there will be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament, but their numbers are not the problem. The heart of the problem is the basis on which they seek to exercise their vote in matters that affect England. I have listened in vain for any solution to that problem from Labour Members, but I believe that my constituents will one day demand an answer.

Mr. Michael Connarty: The last part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution underlines the fact that he is sorely missed on the Conservative Front Bench. Perhaps he will return there one day. He is always precise in his remarks, so can I ask whether he is recommending that Conservative candidates in Scotland should stand on a platform that, if the Conservatives ever return to government, Conservative Members and other Scottish Members of Parliament will be disbarred from voting on any matter to do with England for as long as there is a Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), as the official spokesman on constitutional matters for our party, must be a little circumspect. The new clause asks for an inquiry. Before it is used against me on issues involving a simple Scottish question, I must say that I believe that it is inevitable that the proposition put by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) is where we shall go. That is my solution. It is only a matter of time before we arrive at that position.
When talking in my constituency, I do not use the example of Linlithgow because I always use the example of Dunfermline, East, the constituency of my successor at

the Treasury. It is ridiculous that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), will have no right to vote on schools, hospitals and roads in his constituency, but will have a right to vote on issues affecting my constituency. That will not be sustained.
It has been said that our constituents are not aroused by that prospect, and that is true. I am disappointed by the fact that there is little public awareness in England of the significance of these constitutional issues. That will change. Time and again, the House has passed legislation on extraordinary propositions and nobody really appreciated what the public reaction would be. The public react when they are at the receiving end of a decision that affects their daily lives. If the Labour party wishes to be cheered up by an example, I can tell them that that is what happened on the poll tax. There was remarkably little interest from the general public—there was a great deal of interest in the House—as we considered that legislation. When it was imposed, we discovered that the British public in both Scotland and England were not indifferent to that change in the way in which they were taxed. It did not last very long.
The first time that something deeply controversial affects the health authority, schooling, higher education or transport system in my constituency and it becomes obvious that it has been done only because the shadow Scottish Members with no responsibility in their own constituencies have imposed it on mine, there will be a strong reaction. It would be ostrich-like to pretend that such a situation will not arise. If, for all time, English Members are to be disbarred from voting on matters of that kind in Scotland—I take no comfort from clause 27(7) which, in theory, deals with that right because it will not be invoked for that purpose because English Members will not vote to impose on Scotland matters within the competence of the Scottish Parliament—sooner or later, Scottish Members of Parliament will be prevented from voting on all the matters where competence has been transferred to Edinburgh whenever English, Welsh or other issues arise. For Scottish Labour Members to pretend otherwise is a mistake. The position of the hon. Member for Linlithgow is honourable and logical. It is what he has predicted for 20 years. He is volunteering for a position that others will have imposed on them before long.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that his constituents in Rushcliffe will not long tolerate the imposition of measures voted on by Scottish Members. There is a further point that his constituents will wish to keep in mind. The constituents of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not be affected by the decision that that right hon. Gentleman is imposing on my right hon. and learned Friend's constituents.

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. and learned Friend is right.
There is another matter of slightly less constitutional significance than the voting but which will have a big effect on public opinion. If a Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who happens to be a Scottish Secretary of State sustained by a Scottish majority, imposes a policy that is unpopular in England and the discontented parents of England realise that his policies are not affecting the children of his constituents, it is


inescapable that there will be high feeling. It is no good saying that it will be English nationalists who raise that view; it will be a potent problem.
Over the first 12 months of Labour rule in this country, various things have happened, but the Government's insistence on rushing through this Bill without addressing this long-asked question is one of the poison pills that may poison their affairs at some time in the future and will certainly poison the affairs of some future Government unless it is addressed. If we are to live with a devolved Parliament—I accept that we shall—the solution is to have an inquiry which comes to the conclusion that Scottish Members must not vote on English issues where English Members will not have a vote in Scotland.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: I am trying to be extraordinarily brief by my own standards, so this is the last time.

Mr. Leigh: With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, his solution that Scottish Members should not be allowed to vote on purely English business is no solution at all. After a general election, a Government will have to be formed based on the entirety of Members of this Parliament. If my right hon. and learned Friend's solution were to be adopted, we would have the absurd situation where Scottish Members were sitting in a United Kingdom Cabinet, voting to impose certain matters on England and then not being allowed to vote in the Division Lobby. The whole point of the West Lothian question is that there is no answer.

Mr. Clarke: That would take us away from the rather monolithic politics of the past few years, but not in the way I desire because I have never been in favour of this change. The Cabinet of the day will have to have regard to its parliamentary majority. We shall have a Government who are by no means sure of their parliamentary majority in many matters affecting English domestic politics. If such a Government wish to remain in office, they will have to accommodate themselves to that. They will have to produce policies that they can get through the House of Commons. That is a problem which all Governments face. We may get an odd version of that in the House in the future if we have a Labour Government who have to accept that they cannot pursue their chosen policies in England in all those areas where they have transferred competence.
I conclude where I began. We must consider not only the narrow issue, but where we are going if the House just passes legislation that does not answer the necessary questions, decides that it is too difficult, gives devolution a go and waits to see what happens next. If that happens, we shall have to come back to address these issues in Parliament before long. Also, we shall see a profound effect on the politics of Scotland and England while the discontent rumbles.
So far, that may not have occurred very much in England, but it is already having a dramatic effect on the politics of Scotland. I regret to tell the representatives of

the Scottish National party that I take no comfort from that party's surge in the polls. However I regard SNP Members personally, I see them as a great threat politically.
The Scottish nationalists are to be congratulated on the wisdom of their tactics and strategy. They resisted all the zealots who told them that they should not settle for second best. They have supported this Scottish Parliament all along and have supported the refusal to address issues such as the West Lothian question and separate taxation because, as they usually say, this is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the right direction for them and it will gather momentum. The Government do not have the first idea where they will put their next foot down; they just want to get the Bill through the House.
This is a dangerous and important measure. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes on getting a day's debate on this matter yet again. Some hon. Members are worried about the status of Parliament, which, in my opinion, is lower than it has been for a long time, with a lack of public regard for Westminster and a diminished role for the House in politics. If people are worried about that, they must take seriously the status of hon. Members and the legitimacy of the House as a centre of national debate. I regret that the Government are not doing that as long as they refuse to address the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes in his new clause.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I welcome the assertion of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he is not an English nationalist. As a fellow internationalist, I can tell him that I respect the rights of the people of England to as much self-determination as they want, in the same way as I respect that right for the people of Scotland. We should view the debate in that context.
I am not absolutely opposed in principle to examining the future role of Scottish Members of Parliament in this place after the setting up of a Scottish Parliament. However, I disagree with the new clause in two main respects. First, I disagree with the time restraint put on the review, of 12 months after the passing of the Act. Secondly, I disagree with the targeting of that examination on Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies. The examination of the future role of Members of Parliament must be considerably wider than looking only at those representing Scottish constituencies.
I also question the need to provide for such a review in the Bill and the motives of the Opposition in tabling the new clause, especially because they did not come up with any reasonable answers to the many questions that they put and which they think that the review should deal with.
The alleged problem is the West Lothian question, but there is nothing new in it. For more than half a century, Northern Ireland had its own Parliament. Presumably, there was a West Belfast question, but I do not recall a Conservative Member—indeed, any Member of Parliament—raising it.

6 pm

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps accept that he is wrong. There is a fundamental difference for two reasons. First, as I said to the hon. Member for Ross,


Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), Ulster Members were much fewer in number at the time of Stormont. Secondly, they did not generally vote, save on Northern Ireland business. To their credit, that is not true of Scottish Members, who vote on English business. Furthermore, they are disproportionately represented.

Mr. Canavan: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman read clause 81, he would see that Scottish representation in this place will be reduced. The electoral quota for Scotland will be similar to that for English constituencies.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point. If he read clause 81, he would see that the English quota is being applied. In the time of Stormont, the number was lower than would have been justified by the English quota.

Mr. Canavan: The boundary commission may consider that matter in the light of experience. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the voting habits of Northern Ireland Members. I have not looked through every Hansard from when Stormont was set up, but it is a well-known fact that the majority of Northern Ireland Members were Ulster Unionists, who favoured the Conservative and Unionist party when they voted.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that Harold Wilson did his proverbial nut over a crunch issue in relation to steel nationalisation? Woodrow Wyatt and Desmond Donnelly defected, but the then Prime Minister believed that the Northern Irish, who were not affected, should have a say on that delicate matter.

Mr. Canavan: I can understand Harold Wilson's point. There may be objections to the voting habits of Scottish Members of Parliament in this place, especially after a Scottish Parliament is set up. There may be objections to our current voting habits, but I shall deal later with how that matter might be addressed.
There is nothing new in the West Lothian anomaly in the British constitution. A similar anomaly was tolerated for more than half a century in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who was a Minister of State in Northern Ireland, favours the principle of devolution for Northern Ireland, and most, if not all, Conservative Members favour the restoration of a Northern Ireland assembly or Parliament. There may be a restoration of the West Belfast question, but Conservative Members do not seem to be obsessed by that.
There are similar anomalies in other countries. No doubt there are Catalonia and Andalusia questions in Spain, because its autonomous regions do not all have the same powers. Such asymmetrical decentralisation or asymmetrical federalism sets up anomalies which sometimes lead to alleged injustices, but anomalies in the status quo also cause allegations of injustices. The status quo is an asymmetrical Union, because the Union between Scotland and England is between two countries of unequal populations and, at times, different political complexions and different political traditions.
During the 18 years of Tory rule, many laws were foisted on the people of Scotland against the wishes of the majority of those people and against the wishes of the majority of their elected representatives in this place.

There were specifically Scottish Bills on housing, education, the health service, and, worst of all, the poll tax. Even the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, seemed to forget that the poll tax was introduced in Scotland a year ahead of England, under a separate Scottish Bill. The Scots were used as guinea pigs and rightly felt grave injustice about that.

Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and am interested in his comments. I accept what he says; curiously, the idea behind the Union was harmonisation, except in selected areas, between laws and practices in England and in Scotland. Does he agree that legislating separately for England and for Scotland on a wider and wider range of issues has driven a wedge and promoted devolution?

Mr. Canavan: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting the abolition of Scots law? That seems to be the logic of his remarks. There would be massive opposition. Anomalies in the existing constitution resulted in the perpetration of injustices such as the poll tax which reinforced the case for a Scottish Parliament and was part of the reason for our magnificent majority in the referendum last year.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with the endless canard that the poll tax was introduced in Scotland to inflict a guinea pig experience on it. There was a change in local government finance in Scotland because a revaluation of property caused absolute mayhem. People had to pay hundreds of pounds more or even thousands of pounds more after the revaluation, which occurred a year before the English revaluation.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is parroting the excuses that were given at the time and is trying to rewrite history.
The main issue arising from the new clause is, what is the answer to the West Lothian question? The Liberal Democrats say that the answer is federalism, which is a neat and logical answer. Federalism may evolve, if the people of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom want that, but the people of Scotland cannot be expected to wait for people south of the border to make up their minds about what type of decentralisation or home rule they want before a Scottish Parliament is set up.

Mr. Leigh: Sadly, the federal solution, which is another neat solution, is no solution at all. It depends on the assumption that areas or regions of England, like Bavaria in Germany, have an historical basis. There is no such thing as the east midlands region. People in my county of Lincolnshire do not want to be run by a meaningless Leicester Parliament. We want to be run by a London, national Parliament.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) should not get it into his head that he speaks for England. The Tory party does not speak for England. I am prepared to listen to the views of people from the various regions in England about what they want. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) recently came up with the idea of a Parliament for the people of England.


That may be a feasible proposition in a federal context at some time in the future, if that is what the people of England want. People in the regions of England may not want to be completely ruled from London, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough suggested. They may want a more decentralised form of federalism than a federation of England, Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman said that the people of Scotland should not be required to wait while this issue is sorted out at the English end. I accept that the Scottish people have taken a decision in the referendum and are entitled to have their Parliament. Is it not regrettable that the Government have not addressed this issue, although they have had 12 months to do so? The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay was not to establish an English Parliament but to inquire of the English people whether they want to have a Parliament.

Mr. Canavan: The issue must be addressed not just in the context of the Bill but in relation to the role of all Members of the Westminster Parliament after the Scottish Parliament becomes a reality.
I emphasise that some people underestimate the difficulty and the time that it would take to deliver federalism. It would require us to write down, for the first time in history, the entire British constitution. That would be no mean feat, and getting it through this place or putting it to a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom would be a formidable task. It is not impossible, but it could not be rushed through both Houses of Parliament or put to the people in a referendum in a matter of weeks. It may be done in the fulness of time, but the people of Scotland will have their Parliament next year. I am pleased to hear that even the Tory party now belatedly accepts that.
What will Members representing Scottish constituencies do at Westminster after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Eric Forth: That is a very good question.

Mr. Canavan: I agree. A whole host of reserved matters will still be the responsibility of this Parliament, and will affect the constituents of Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. Reserved matters such as foreign affairs, international development, defence, social security, macro-economic issues and many others are listed in the appropriate schedule to the Bill.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to clarify this issue. As he pointed out, fund raising for the whole of the United Kingdom will continue to be decided in this Parliament. English taxpayers will still be expected to stump up a great deal more per capita for people in Scotland. That power may be in the hands of a Scottish Chancellor—backed up by a Scottish team in his Department, as is the case now—who funds Scotland at a better rate than England. That will undoubtedly lead to great annoyance among my constituents in Billericay. I have not heard anyone in the Government explain how they will overcome that problem.

Mr. Canavan: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Scot, but his responsibilities as Chancellor are to all the

people in the United Kingdom, not merely to the people of Scotland. The distribution of public expenditure throughout the United Kingdom should be done on the basis of population and need. It is not correct to allege that Scotland receives an unfairly large amount of public expenditure compared with England. There may be counter-allegations in Scotland about the Scots having to subsidise public transport in London, for example. I am not opposed to subsidising public transport in London: I use it occasionally. However, the overriding principle should be a distribution of funds based on population and need. It is not helpful to the argument to stir up unrest between the various nations that make up the United Kingdom.

Mr. Swinney: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) raises an old sage in the argument about funding for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom. Before the last election, studies were published, admittedly by the Conservative Secretary of State, that had been produced by independent consultants who compared public expenditure in Scotland with that in England and found that the difference was negligible.

Mr. Canavan: I have not studied the figures in detail, as the hon. Gentleman probably has. Evidence to that effect was undoubtedly produced by the Treasury during the previous Parliament.

Mr. Jenkin: That is fiction.

Mr. Canavan: If it was fiction, it was Tory Government fiction.
I should like to return to my train of thought before I allowed interventions. Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies will obviously be able to vote in this place on reserved matters: there is no problem about that. The problem would arise if Scottish Members voted on non-reserved matters: matters which, for the Scottish people, will be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, but, for English people, will still be the responsibility of this Parliament. That would result in complaints, especially if Scottish representation were to affect the outcome of votes in this Parliament or, even more so, if it affected which party became the party of government after a general election.
Under the proposals in clause 81, the boundary commission will reduce the number of Westminster constituencies in Scotland. That will reduce the possibility of Scottish Members affecting the outcome of a vote in this Parliament, but it will not get rid of it entirely. I predict that there will be a continuing debate on this matter in this Parliament, and there will inevitably be demands from the people of England as a whole or from the English regions for greater decentralisation of power. I would welcome that. When the people of England wake up to the consequences of this legislation and the desirability of decentralisation to their own regions, that will be the time to review the role of this Parliament—not the role of Scottish Members in isolation, but the role of this Parliament as a whole and its relationship with other Parliaments and other assemblies throughout the United Kingdom. I see the Bill not simply as a proposal for radical constitutional change in Scotland, but as the


forerunner of further radical constitutional change throughout the United Kingdom, and I would welcome that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Back-Bench speeches so far have averaged more than 20 minutes. It is obvious that not every hon. Member who is trying to take part in this important debate will get in if that average is maintained. May I appeal for shorter speeches and briefer interventions?

Mr. John MacGregor: I hear what you say, Sir Alan, and I shall take as few interventions as I can.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) rightly said that there would be continuing interest in this matter in Parliament and, if necessary, beyond. Perhaps he underestimates just how much keen interest there will continue to be. We are seeing today what we have predicted all along, which is that the Government have unleashed forces whose development they simply cannot control.
What the Secretary of State is worrying about today is the rise of the Scottish National party in the opinion polls—the lead that it now has—and the possibility that he may not command a majority in the first Scottish Parliament. He should be much more worried about the issue that we are debating today, as it is the most fundamental question in the Bill. I find it astonishing that so few Labour Members from English constituencies are present—none so far, in fact.

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central): indicated dissent.

Mr. MacGregor: One has arrived at last, no doubt because the Walworth road bleeper told him to. If not, that suggests that Walworth road itself cannot see the importance of this matter to English Members of Parliament.
I spoke on the Second Reading of the first devolution Bill in the late 1970s. As a comparatively new Member, and as a Scot who represented an English constituency, I focused on two issues that I still consider fundamental: the fact that the Barnett formula, which had then been recently introduced, gave disproportionate per capita public spending to the people of Scotland, and—above all—the West Lothian question.
I do not suppose that anyone listened to me much then, because I spoke at 7 am after an all-night sitting; but those who were there will recall that there were several all-night sittings on Second Reading. Characteristically, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was there. I have subsequently admired the way in which he has pursued the West Lothian question, and brought it to national attention.
I have also waited with interest to see whether the Labour party—now the Government—would find an answer to the dilemma. The Government have not produced one, because they simply do not have one. It is

the deep black hole in all their proposals. No doubt that is why they tried to curtail debate on the issue to just 50 minutes in Committee.

Mr. Dewar: Not true.

Mr. MacGregor: It is true, and I am glad that we have a whole day to debate it now.
Having set course for a Scottish Parliament, the Government will be forced to a conclusion that they do not want.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: Not at the moment.
The Government will be forced to a conclusion that they do not want, because public outrage at their proposals for English constituents, coupled with the logic of the situation, will make that conclusion impossible to resist.
My only other speech on the matter was on the Barnett formula and public expenditure, in which English Members have a reasonable interest. Interestingly, I was criticised by several Scots for having the audacity to intervene in a Scottish debate, and for speaking only at that stage. I hope that the same point will not be made today, as there is massive English interest in the issue. It is vital that we should speak for the interests of the 90 per cent. of the population who will be affected, including the people of Norfolk and my constituents.
It would be interesting to ask those who objected to my participation in that Scottish debate, in which I had a legitimate English interest, what they imagine the feeling in the House will be when Scottish Members try to speak on English matters while there is no possibility of our being involved in Scottish matters. What happened to me seemed clearly to indicate what is likely to happen, and I hope that they see it in that way.
There are four options before us. I want to be constructive. I stress that I did not want to go down the road that we are taking, but the Scottish Parliament is going to happen. We must accept that, and everything that flows from it is the responsibility of the Government.
The first option is the status quo, but that is totally unacceptable and unsustainable. The arguments against it have been so well deployed—particularly by the hon. Member for Linlithgow—that I need not dwell on them. It will daily become more obvious that it is unsustainable for Scottish Members to be able to vote, and, perhaps, speak, intervene or ask questions, on English matters in a future Parliament. It will not be enough for them to offer to exercise restraint, as the Stormont MPs did—that has already been discussed—and, indeed, I do not think that they will do that. It is obvious that the self-restraint shown by Ulster MPs will not be shown by Scottish Labour Members.
The position will not be just an anomaly, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said; it will be a constitutional outrage. It has not had a great deal of attention in the English press—most of the Bill's coverage has been in the Scottish press—but, whenever I tell my constituents what the West Lothian question involves, they are outraged. It will quickly become an issue when we see it happening week after


week in practice. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was absolutely right about that. The status quo is unacceptable, and it will not last.
The second option is regional development agencies, or regional assemblies. The Government have, in my view, put those ideas up as a sop, a fudge and a smokescreen, to suggest that they are an English alternative. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said in The Scotsman that regional assemblies would, by definition, be the answer. According to him, the more power is devolved to the regions, the more that answers the West Lothian question, but that simply does not add up. It is nowhere near right, for four reasons.
First, we know that the Government will introduce regional assemblies in a spasmodic way, where there is clear demand for them. There will not be a uniform response in England, and assemblies cannot therefore be an answer to the Scottish Parliament.
Secondly, we must accept that there is no regional coherence, or sense of national belonging, in the English regions, as there is in Scotland. The people of Norfolk do not identify with the people of Essex or Hertfordshire in the same way as the Scots, in relation to their national feeling about a Scottish Parliament.
Thirdly, there is no demand for assemblies in many parts of England. I know that there is demand in the north-east, and, possibly, in one or two other northern areas, but there is no demand in East Anglia, except from a few Labour councillors and a few officials who see big opportunities for further personal advancement. The ordinary population does not want another layer of bureaucracy. There is no demand, and it simply is not an answer to the question of the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Robathan: How many letters has my right hon. Friend had from constituents putting the case for a regional assembly? Is it as many as I have had, which is none?

Mr. MacGregor: That was exactly the point that I was going to make. Not only have I had no letters, but assemblies have never been mentioned at all by constituents, except by those who oppose them. I do not think that Government policy stands up on that ground. That is why we will not see regional assemblies all over England, and that is another reason why assemblies will not be equivalent to the Scottish Parliament.
My fourth point is the one that matters most. Assemblies do not address real issues of comparability. Regional development agencies and assemblies will not remotely measure up to the range of issues, responsibilities and powers of the Scottish Parliament. RDAs will not cover most of the domestic issues that are being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Even if they did, they would not control them, but would remain subject to decisions made in Parliament and Whitehall. They would not have the autonomy that will exist in the Scottish Parliament.
Let me turn to expenditure. I do not think that there is any suggestion that regional assemblies or RDAs should be given a block grant, which they could deploy as they wished, to cover not only the issues with which are

supposed to deal, but all the issues to be covered by the Scottish Parliament. I have not heard that suggested. There is no equivalence there, and I do not believe that that would ever happen.
RDAs and assemblies will not have powers over primary legislation. It is ludicrous to imagine that 10 English regional assemblies will replicate what the Scottish Parliament will do in terms of primary legislation.
The mind would boggle at the inconsistencies, anomalies, complexities and unworkable arrangements that would arise if the regional assemblies had primary legislative powers, so there is simply no case for saying that devolution to the English regions is the equivalent of a Scottish Parliament, as the Government have sometimes tried to pretend.
I come to the third option, which is the variety of solutions for addressing the problem in this House. That is what the new clause is directed at, and I certainly welcome it. I hope that it takes us a good deal further in the debate. My only caveat about it is that the powers to conduct the review have been given to the Secretary of State. Given the fact that he does not want to address this problem and has shown no sign of addressing it for 20 years, I cannot see that he will come up with a constructive solution that will be appropriate, but it is right for him to try and therefore I welcome the new clause.
6.30 pm
It is right to examine—I put this point in all seriousness to the Secretary of State—whether a satisfactory answer to the issue can be found before the Scottish Parliament goes ahead. It would be outrageous for it to do so on any other basis. That is why I strongly support the new clause. However, there are considerable difficulties in finding a solution in this House.
An English Grand Committee certainly would not add up because it would not have anything like the powers of a Scottish Parliament and would not deal with the issues about the two types of Members of Parliament. If one further examines how, apart from an English Grand Committee, this matter could be dealt with, there are many problems, including defining what legislation the body applies to and who decides. It would clearly be wrong, if there were any vote in the House on the matter, for Scottish Members to have a vote on it.
As I know only too well as a former Leader of the House, there would be formidable timetable problems in trying to have differences day by day in the way in which who could speak and vote would work out. There are the problems of the two types of Member of Parliament—those who would not be able to vote, speak or take part in many debates in the Chamber and those who rightly would. We shall have the problem of two types of Members of Parliament anyway, as has constantly been pointed out, but to try to find a solution to the West Lothian question in the House would make those problems much more difficult.
Above all, there is the problem of Government control. If, not in this Parliament, but, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow envisaged, in many situations in other Parliaments, Scottish Members of Parliament had the controlling vote, clearly, the Government of the day might


be able to command control over all the issues that are reserved to the House, but not the English issues that came to the Chamber. The Government could lose half their agenda, which is, of course, precisely what the Labour Government fear and why they will not go down that route. A fundamental problem has been unleashed by the Scottish Parliament.
Therefore, it is essential to try to find out whether we can find a solution. I wish the new clause well, but I suspect that we will be driven to the only sensible and logical conclusion—I say sensible and logical not because I want this conclusion, but because it has been forced on us by the Government's decision: it is the fourth option of an English Parliament to mirror the Scottish Parliament. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for the Bill that she introduced on the matter.
I emphasise that I do not want an English Parliament. It is another layer of bureaucracy, but I am driven to that conclusion—and I have thought about this for 20 years—because, now that the Government have gone down this route, it is the only way in which to bring fairness to all English constituents and to ensure that we do not have the complete nonsense that we have all predicted for future Parliaments.
That is exactly what the Labour Government have unleashed. I warn them that, just as they are running into difficulties in Scotland, so they will run into difficulties on the issue of an English Parliament—which is feared by them; I do not think that they want that solution, and it is easy to see why—and sooner rather than later. That is why this is such an important debate and why it is a fundamental issue in the Bill.

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief.
My two criticisms of the new clause have been voiced already my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan): the timing of the review, which is to take place less than 12 months after we get things going, and the fact that it is confined to Scots Members. If we receive the result that all hon. Members must be hoping and praying for on 22 May in Northern Ireland, might we not be listening to Conservative Members arguing that we need to review the powers and functions of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland, from Wales and from Scotland, and why not add to that English Members?
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) argued a powerful case for stability that is based on constitutional legitimacy. He spoiled his advocacy by saying ad hominem that Scots Members treat this serious and remarkable legislative measure frivolously. Speaking as a federalist—I have been a federalist all my adult life—and as someone who has advocated all his adult life the need for electoral change and proportional representation, I assure him that I treat this matter with the seriousness and gravity that it warrants. I put him straight on that point.
Our constituents would not allow us to treat this matter frivolously. The setting up of the Scottish Parliament is of the greatest import to them and they know as well as any Tory Member not only that there are intended consequences of this legislation, but that there will be unintended consequences. That is inevitable with all sorts of legislation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe seemed to agree that constitutional legitimacy is conferred on political institutions and legislatures by the approval of the electorate or of a majority of the electorate. I think that Max Weber argued that literally decades ago—that an institution is legitimate in so far as it receives the support of people; he was talking about mature parliamentary democracies.
What has happened in Scotland, certainly in my time in this place, is that that legitimacy, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in an honourable and fair-minded way, has come under serious question. It suffered severe diminution during 18 years of Conservative Administration because the Administrations of which he was a member refused to check the legitimacy of what they were doing with the Scottish electorate, and they paid the price.
As someone who has advocated proportional representation for many years, I say that it is unfortunate that 500,000 Scots voted for Conservative candidates in the last election, yet do not have a single Scots Conservative Member. With the system that we are going to introduce into the Parliament, there will be Conservative Members in Edinburgh; I hope but a few—I think that there will be a handful. Perhaps one will be the son of the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). Therefore, the legitimacy to which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe referred has largely gone in the eyes of many of my constituents.
In many Scottish constituencies, Labour Members are not concerned in general elections about the threat posed by Conservative candidates; the Scottish National party poses the greatest threat to us. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe paid a fine compliment to the Poujadists of the SNP by mentioning their political astuteness, and there may be something in that. I have in the past complimented them on their very honourable and rigorous adherence to peaceful and democratic change of a most dramatic nature.
I believe, like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—although my view is not as bleak as his—that we in Scotland, and others elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are going down a constitutional road that forks, and that it will be one way or the other for us, especially for those of us in Scotland. In one direction lies independence and a separate Scottish state, as an independent member state of the European Union. In the other direction lies federalism.
We have spoken much about legitimacy in debates on the Bill. Despite the legitimate objections to federalism offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I think that we shall eventually have a federal system in these islands that we share. We sit in a Parliament of a multinational state. I cannot say that the people of some of those nations—certainly not the people of Scotland—have been frustrated by this place or by our Executive of the past 18 years, because frustration is too mealy-mouthed a word. They have been gravely disenchanted, and now have a sense of alienation from our constitutional institutions.
It may well be that we have a serious problem in the West Lothian question. However, in the near future, are we to have a West Belfast question, or a Cardiff question?


Why is it that, when talking about subsidy junkets, some Opposition Members always refer to Scotland and not to Wales or Northern Ireland'?

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Or London.

Dr. Godman: Yes. I sometimes think that we should have devolved London, so that the rest of us might live happily ever after. However, it is too late for that.
We are experiencing remarkable constitutional change, and Scottish devolution is only a part of it. As one who is fairly knowledgeable about events in Northern Ireland, I certainly hope that there will be a resounding yes vote on 22 May, so that we shall be able to establish an assembly there. If there is a yes vote, north and south of the border, the House will in the very near future have to consider legislation on a Northern Ireland assembly. I believe that the number of representatives envisaged for that assembly is too high, but that, in the course of time, that number will be changed—just as the number of Scots Members in this place may well be changed. An argument could be made also for reducing the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament in the Edinburgh Parliament. In the fulness of time, we shall debate those issues, both in this place and elsewhere.
It is incumbent on Opposition Members to pay close attention to our constituents' aspirations. If some of the measures advocated by Opposition Members were to be implemented, an unintended consequence would be to drive many people in the west of Scotland into the, some might say, seductive embrace of SNP Members—whom, some years ago, I described as Poujadists, exploiting people's discontents with any type of government.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is implying that there is innate alienation between those of us who live in, work in and represent English constituencies and those of us who live in, work in and represent Scottish constituencies. There is no xenophobia among the English on that issue—as witnessed by the fact that, although almost 150 hon. Members are Scottish-born, more than half of them represent English constituencies. That has caused absolutely no contentiousness in the past, and I hope it will not cause any in the future. However, with the introduction of this legislation, hon. Members' origins and which constituency they represent have become contentious issues.

Dr. Godman: With deep respect to the hon. Lady, I suggest that she goes back to the "Shorter Oxford Dictionary", because there is a world of difference between alienation and xenophobia.
Although I was born in Yorkshire, of Scottish and Irish families, I have said—not only in this place, but in many other places, including Northern Ireland—that I admire the stoicism and honour that the English people have shown in relation not only to Northern Ireland but to events in Scotland. It is remarkable that so many hon. Members born in Scotland represent—ably—English constituencies. Moreover, Labour Members who were born in Scotland but represent English constituencies have assured me that they are rarely described pejoratively as

"jocks" and that they are properly assessed on their performance as elected representatives, which is as it should be.
Yes, during 18 years of a Tory Government, undoubtedly there was alienation. There was deep anger about the poll tax in my constituency—where, in the most recent general election, many people said, "If Labour loses this time, Norman, it will be the SNP and separation for us." Which of my hon. Friends, especially those from the west of Scotland, will deny that that was repeatedly said to them on the doorstep in the general election? Time and again, they were told, "This is your last chance. We want a Labour Government, but if the English do not produce one, we shall turn to the SNP."

Mr. Maclean: Might not the hon. Gentleman himself be confusing alienation with a lack of democratic legitimacy? Does he believe that the electorate who vote for us give us democratic legitimacy, and that that is a key part of the question? What gives us democratic legitimacy is the fact that—despite slight differences in our constituencies, such as their size—each hon. Member has an equal voting right in this Parliament as currently constituted. Does he agree that, once a situation develops in which hon. Members no longer have equal rights in dealing with one another and in voting on issues, all vestiges of democratic legitimacy will be removed?

Dr. Godman: No, not at all. Although there is something in the right hon. Gentleman's comments on individual elected representatives being given legitimacy by the votes that they receive in elections, I do not know of a single nation that has moved towards a federalist constitution in a purely symmetrical manner. One might argue that that happened in the former West Germany, but let us not forget what preceded those political developments. All those issues will have to be examined.
As someone who has been an hon. Member since 1983, I believe that I—compared with English Members who have voted on exclusively Scottish matters for the past 14 or 15 years—have a hell of a long way to go in catching up by voting on exclusively English issues. The rationalisation of the poll tax offered by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) did him no honour. The tax was introduced a year earlier for our constituents than it was for those south of the border. The Tory party has never been forgiven for that.
The change will present us with the problems outlined so ably and honourably by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, but we need not be so gloomy in our prescriptions. In the long run, I think that the answer is in federalism. The four secessionists on the Opposition Benches—I am referring to the four SNP Members—will say that the answer is an independent Scottish nation alongside the nations of the European Union. I happen to disagree with them profoundly, but I compliment them on the way they have made their case. Incidentally, they are going to lose in May next year, certainly in Inverclyde, but if it is any consolation to them, the Conservative candidate will be out of sight, perhaps deservedly so, because of the Conservative record in Scotland.
What I am saying—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] The Conservatives do not like what they are being told. They denied that they were English nationalists, but the truth was offered by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and


Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who said that the Conservatives' concerns were shaped to a considerable extent by naked self-interest. I would suggest that that naked self-interest is fuelled by the fear that they will never again rule in a unitary state known as the United Kingdom. That is what disturbs them.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: If the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) is to be believed, I speak as either one of the hounds or one of the hares of the Scottish National party—whichever it is, we are certainly running at the moment. I shall attempt to be brief because I know that many hon. Members of the party that forms the official Opposition, certainly in this House, wish to go on at some length, and I should not dream of stopping them.
The new clause is an attack on the very principle behind the Bill. Almost without exception, all the speeches and interventions, although disguised as worry about the so-called West Lothian question, have basically been attacks on the principle of the legislation. It is said that there is an anomaly in the Bill, but no one has offered any solutions, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor).
Conservatives have used the West Lothian question as a symbol, something that has typified the House's approach to devolutionary legislation for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom for many years. Of the 1893 debate on the Government of Ireland Bill, Joseph Chamberlain said that the question whether Members should be in or out—the West Lothian type question—was not a technical point but
the symbol and flag of the controversy".
He later said:
I used that point to show the absurdity of the whole scheme.
Today, the West Lothian question needs to occupy us for six and a half hours so that the Tories can show their opposition to the whole concept.
The Conservative party had 18 years to come up with some kind of solution. It should have known that there was a problem in Scotland waiting to be addressed, and that perhaps brought some anomalies along with it from the Conservative point of view, but it spent no time thinking about those anomalies. It ignored them in the hope that they and the Scottish people would go away. The fact that the new clause is just an excuse for six and a half hours of whingeing about the concept behind the Bill is clear from the new clause itself.
The new clause asks the Secretary of State to carry out a review—I am not quite sure which Secretary of State, but it does not really matter. I suspect that any Secretary of State could produce a review tomorrow, and we could then get on. Let us not kid ourselves that the Tories genuinely want the new clause to be added to the Bill. I suppose it is another example of what is called a probing amendment.

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he were to support the new clause and if it were accepted, it would have no effect on bringing the Scottish Parliament into being, but it would enable the House to address, after an inquiry by the Secretary of State, the whole of what is known as the West Lothian question—and is it not precisely the English dimension of that question that is never debated in this House?

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Coincidentally, his colleagues have also tabled

amendment No. 2, which we are considering at the same time. That would stop most of the Bill coming into effect until the review had been published. The purpose is to delay implementation of the Bill.
As we have heard, the constitution of this country is riven with anomalies of which, in other circumstances, hon. Members are very proud. They are proud of the eccentricities of this country's constitution. Let us consider the anomaly of the other place in this very building. It is in no way representative of the UK or of any cross-section of its population. Until the 1960s, Scotland was represented there by only 16 peers, while the rest of the House of Lords was representative of England, Wales and, of course, Ireland. However, that anomaly apparently did not need to be sorted out.
What about the lack of proportional representation which, as happened in the second election after the second world war, could lead to a Government being elected even though they had fewer votes than the main Opposition party? What about Stormont? Perhaps Stormont Members of Parliament did not always use their ability to vote on legislation that did not affect Northern Ireland, but no one said that that should be written into UK legislation.
One anomaly for the people of Scotland was the poll tax, which has already been mentioned. A much more recent example of an anomaly is the reorganisation of local government in Scotland, which led to water being taken out of the control of local authorities. That change was opposed in the referendum in the Strathclyde region. Despite what the then Secretary of State for Scotland said, the people of the Strathclyde region voted massively against the proposal. In this place, however, hon. Members not from Scotland but from other parts—basically England—voted to press ahead.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) referred to another anomaly whereby, because so little time is spent in this House examining Scottish matters, Scottish Members are hardly ever able to scrutinise the business of the Scottish Office which currently exercises so many functions in Scotland. Apparently, we are supposed to accept that.
If there is an anomaly in the legislation, its extent and nature have been considerably exaggerated. Only twice this century—from 1964 to 1966 and for six months in 1974—have Scottish Members determined who would form the Government of the United Kingdom. Such a situation is not a problem in other countries.
An anomaly already exists because Scotland and England have different health and education systems. Scottish Members may vote on a change to the English education or health system which, even under the current set-up, will mean no comparable change in the situation in Scotland. There will be an English education Act or an English health Act on which Scottish Members may vote with the apparent approval of all hon. Members, yet there is no comparable change at the same time in Scotland. That, apparently, is not an anomaly—it is acceptable.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: That is a very different anomaly altogether. The truth of the matter is that English Members would be able to vote on the Scottish legislation relating to health and education on a subsequent occasion. That will not be the case under the present system.

Mr. Morgan: That is a strange sort of quid pro quo. I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying, "It is all right;


we shall let Scottish Members vote to change the English health or education system provided that, at some later stage, in the years to come, we can vote to change a wholly different system and that that will balance things out and stop us getting letters of complaint from our constituents about Scottish Members voting on the English health or education system." The truth is that, at present, Scottish Members vote to change the education system in Norfolk or anywhere else in England without any guarantee of a comparable change to the education system north of the border, particularly as the Scottish education system is so different.
The position of the Scottish National party is quite clear. We would solve the problem by having no Scottish Members here on any day of the week. However, as long as the United Kingdom Parliament retains legislative competence over all matters—let us be clear that clause 27(7) retains the right for the House to legislate on anything in Scotland—we need Scottish Members at Westminster.
7 pm
Let me remind anyone who believes that Scottish Members should not vote on English matters that those English matters are paid for out of United Kingdom taxes, which are contributed to in equal terms—I would say proportionately greater terms—by the people of Scotland. As long as we continue to subsidise the affairs of the City of London and Greater London, we must continue to have a voice at Westminster.
Finally, I wonder whether Conservative Members have considered how today's debate is being seen in Scotland. It will be seen precisely as the Conservatives carrying on as they did from 1979 until last year. I am glad that the debate will continue for six and a half hours, as every hour that passes will drive home the message to the people of Scotland and will undo any good that the former Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands will achieve in his reorganisation or reinvigoration of the Scottish Tory party. I am sure that he will wring his hands as he listens to the speeches of Conservative Members.

Mr. Savidge: When I last spoke in a debate on the Scotland Bill, I expressed the fear that I was liable to repeat arguments that I had used before in the House, and not just those of other hon. Members. However, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not let that stop them using arguments that we had heard before.
When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow say that he did not believe in snap, instant answers, the thought crossed my mind that, whatever else it was, the West Lothian question was certainly not a snap, instant question. Conservative Members claim that insufficient time has been devoted to discussing the West Lothian question, but most people in Scotland will feel that it has been discussed for years and years. Some hon. Members feel that it has been discussed for years and years this afternoon.
Let me begin a brief West Lothian question and answer session by repeating the West Lothian answer. The people of West Lothian voted in favour of it by nearly

80 per cent. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, he should consider that today he is representing himself, not his constituency. He said that people in Scotland should be allowed to make up their minds. They were, and they did.
Let me raise once again what I call the Westminster question in response to the West Lothian question. In describing the West Lothian question, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow described the possible nightmare that, at some time, a small minority of people in England might vote for one party, but, as a result of the votes of people in Scotland, a different party might form a Government. He invited us to imagine the horrors that could result from that, in that Scottish Members could take decisions on matters that were exclusively and solely English. He described the horror of Livingston and Linlithgow taking decisions affecting Liverpool and London, and Scots Members deciding who became English Ministers for health and education. He said that, if he understood his parliamentary arithmetic, that could happen.
I am a mathematician, and my understanding of parliamentary arithmetic is that what I call the Westminster question has arisen rather more often. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) and involves an English majority deciding a result in the United Kingdom that is totally at variance with the votes of the people of Scotland. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we experienced that throughout the 18 years of Tory Government, when, at every opportunity, Scotland overwhelmingly rejected the party that made the decisions.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman spare us the details? We fully understand that his party introduced the legislation because it was no longer prepared to allow issues affecting the United Kingdom to be decided on the basis that an English Member had just as much say as a Scottish Member and vice versa. Will he get to the point without going over the entire history of the times when the wretched English Members decided Scottish issues?

Mr. Savidge: The way in which the Tories have argued throughout the debate so far shows that, although they pretend to have accepted the results of the referendum, they manifestly have not. That is why we shall continue driving home the point that English Members decided exclusively and solely Scottish matters. [Interruption.] I apologise, and I will reduce the volume of my speech, but at least I have woken up some English Tory Members and made them listen to what we have been trying to say for hours and hours.
Let us remember that London and Liverpool determined what happened in Livingston and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, and English Members chose the Ministers for health and education in Scotland. The party that inflicted that horror was totally opposed in Scotland; it ended up with not a single Member of the European Parliament representing Scotland, and, in the council elections, having gerrymandered the boundaries, it was still wiped off the electoral map that it had redrawn. Finally, it should never forget that it ended up with not one Scottish Tory Member in the House.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) spoke about the dreadful possibility that Scots Members might interfere in English matters.


However, I have gained the impression that English Tories interfere in Scottish matters rather more than Scottish Members interfere in English matters. Usually, English Members presume to pontificate about what goes on in Scotland on the basis that their grandfathers once visited Auchterturra. [Interruption.]

Sir Robert Smith: Conservative Members are saying that the Scottish Chancellor is interfering, but I thought that they accepted that the United Kingdom still existed, and therefore that we had a Chancellor for the entire United Kingdom, not just for England.

Mr. Savidge: I gladly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I made a similar point when the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) intervened earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred to the slow-burning fuse of English nationalism. Having listened to speeches from Conservative Members, I thought that they represented the slow-burning fuse of English nationalism; indeed, given how depleted that party has become, perhaps one ought rather to refer to the slow, burnt-out few of English nationalism.
I should give credit where it is due, however. The Conservatives have provided us with a Westminster answer to the Westminster and West Lothian questions, as they have created circumstances in which the parliamentary arithmetic to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred is much less likely. I assume that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) would agree that, under the present Leader of the Opposition, they are likely to be in that position for a long time. It is most unlikely that the nightmare conjured up by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will occur.
It has been said that there will be anomalies. I find it extraordinary that people get so concerned about the possibility of elected Scottish Members influencing English affairs when they do not seem the slightest bit worried about unelected hereditary peers—whether from England or Scotland—affecting matters here.
The system will be asymmetrical, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said, we are an asymmetrical country. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are asymmetrical in their populations. Solutions are therefore bound to be asymmetrical.
My hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) spoke about the West Belfast question, which the Conservative party has to consider, because it says that it accepts Northern Ireland devolution as a vital part of achieving peace in that island. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who made a most disappointing speech in the previous debate on this issue, accepts that there should be devolution for Northern Ireland.
Let us repeat that the Conservatives now accept that there should be Scottish devolution. Listening to them, one would hardly believe it. I am reminded of the cartoon on the front of The Times today, which shows two people from the middle east talking. One of them asks:
D'you think there'll ever be peace within the Tory party?

We should ask the Tories for a clause that contains their answer to the West Lothian question. What is their answer? "Answer came there none", which is an apt quote, given that other hon. Members have "eaten every one" of the Scots Tories.

Mr. Leigh: Of course there is no neat constitutional answer. The only answers are that we lump it, or that there is independence for Scotland.

Mr. Savidge: I will give the hon. Gentleman an answer. My answer would be simple: those matters that the House decides to devolve elsewhere should be determined elsewhere, and those that the House decides should be determined here should be determined here. All Members of the House ought to participate in making those determinations.
It has been asked what the position will be regarding any growth in demand for devolution in England.

Mr. Grieve: On the basis of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, his earlier arguments about the iniquities of the previous position whereby English Members legislated on Scottish affairs are complete bunkum, because, in the past, Parliament determined what should be done, and it was done. Are we to take it that the hon. Gentleman's preliminary remarks were a load of hokum?

Mr. Savidge: My precise point is that, if there were a demand for English devolution, it should be granted. That could be achieved by federalism, as suggested by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, or by another method, favoured by other hon. Members, including me, which would be a form of devolution to regional assemblies in England such as the London assembly, which the Conservative party now accepts.
There is a case for subsidiarity, as against centralism. I prefer subsidiarity to centralism. I have said before and will conclude by saying that my long-term vision would be a system of world government, continental government, national government and regional government, down to community decision making, with correct levels of subsidiarity meaning that all decisions were made at the lowest suitable level. That would be the way to achieve a peaceful, stable world, and create a properly participatory democracy. Labour Members believe in democracy.

Mr. Rowe: I begin by picking up two remarks made by the Secretary of State for Scotland during these debates and outside the House.
First, the right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear that, given a choice between being Secretary for Scotland and being in the new Scottish Parliament, he would much prefer the latter. Nothing could make clearer his expectation that the job of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the new system will be relatively valueless. All the arguments about what such a Secretary of State could do, which were well put by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), seem likely to come true. I will be sorry to see the Secretary of State leave this place. He brings an air of sardonic wit to the House that we will greatly miss.


The second remark by the Secretary of State during debates on the Bill was that it was the role of a Government to foresee possible dangers and find a way to avoid them. This debate has shown that there are possible dangers that clearly have been foreseen, about which the Government have done nothing.
There has been a series of remarks about the risk of English nationalism. Such a backlash would be unfortunate. The United Kingdom has worked well on the basis of mutual respect, and even if, in the heat of the attempts—which have now succeeded—to get constitutional change in Scotland, some Scottish people have been intemperate about the English, on the whole the temperature has been kept satisfactorily low.

Sir Robert Smith: I am still confused about Conservative Members' description of the United Kingdom as having been stable for 200 years, when the previous constitutional solution was achieved on the back of a revolution and many deaths in the civil war.

Mr. Rowe: There is no value in my responding to a comment about a remark that I did not make, and I will not try to do so.
There is a serious risk of creating an English backlash. It is sad that, in order to focus the minds of people who on the whole take no interest in constitutional matters, the press and media will whip up feeling on an inflammatory issue, and there will suddenly be a consciousness of English nationalism, to which I would greatly object.
To take one example from my county, there will shortly be—although the Government are remarkably coy about how they will go about it—a form of referendum on the future of the county's education system. That will undoubtedly generate considerable passion. The rules for the referendum will be decided here. If, after the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a new system, a similarly heated subject arises in Kent, the interest and attitude of the press could well start an English national backlash. which we should not accept. I am sorry that the Secretary of State, who could clearly have foreseen such a problem, has taken not steps to resolve it.
Far from being hostile to the Scottish decision in the referendum—I certainly feel no such hostility—we are expressing hostility to the Government's idea that this long-established constitution requires not carefully thought through, well worked out constitutional change, but tinkering. The Labour Government are like small children playing in a building who are interested in finding out what happens if they take the odd brick out of the wall.
In speech after speech, even in this relatively narrow debate, hon. Members have said, "Of course, we shall just have to see what happens. Of course, things will change over time. Of course, we shall have to work things out." Yet no attempt has seriously been made to work out the problem or to foresee the likely outcome. If one pulls enough bricks out of a wall, one is buried by it.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his request for the matter to be even further thought out will be taken by people in Scotland as yet another delaying tactic? No matter how honourable his

motives, that is how it will appear. People in Scotland remember that, during the previous referendum campaign, Lord Home said that we must not accept the 1979 scheme, and that we should bring forward a better one. We are now 18 years on, and the hon. Gentleman says that this scheme is not the better scheme. When will we get the better scheme?

Mr. Rowe: The decision has been made, and we accept it—although it is true that the role of Ministers and Scottish Members in Westminster remains remarkably hazy. There is plenty of time for the Government to set up an inquiry into the role that Members of Parliament and their Ministers are to discharge in this place. I see absolutely no reason why that should hold up implementation of the new system. It would be entirely prudent to carry out such an inquiry.
Indeed, I have no objection to considering the role of Members of Parliament generally. I should be perfectly happy to discuss the role of Members of Parliament, how it is changing and how it might change in future. I find no reason for limiting such an inquiry to Scottish Members, although it is perfectly understandable that we should table a new clause relating only to Scottish Members, since the change has been made entirely as a result of Scottish Office effort, and not on a Parliament-wide basis.
I see absolutely no reason why we should go ahead with the new system without dealing with consequences that could be foreseen. Of course many things will happen that we will not expect or cannot work out now, but the role and function of Scottish Members of Parliament who will have a position in this House quite unlike that of any other is one thing that can be considered. We can foresee what that will be like and consider how we might make it more acceptable to constituents such as mine, who will feel—perhaps irrationally—that there is something grossly unfair about being confronted by the activities of Members of Parliament who have absolutely no role to play in subjects in their own country, but have a major role in this country.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I confess to being puzzled about the exact nature of this debate as it progresses. As we are frequently told, the House can debate anything it pleases at any time it pleases. Given that, will the hon. Gentleman explain why an amendment is required to allow the House to debate the role of Scottish Members? I find such a proposition extraordinary.

Mr. Rowe: If there were any possibility of the Government considering the future role of Scottish Members of Parliament in Westminster, the new clause would not be necessary. However, there is absolutely no suggestion that the Government think that that is either necessary or desirable. It therefore seems entirely proper to table a new clause requiring them to do what they show no sign of wanting to do. It is for those reasons that I shall certainly support the new clause.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that he accepted the decision taken by the people of Scotland in the referendum but went on to say that he supports the new clause and the associated amendment. That simply cannot make sense. The new clause would


prevent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from laying the orders to implement the Act until the future status of Members in the House had been resolved.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) said, the problem with Tory Members of Parliament addressing the West Lothian question is that they are not prepared to offer any answer to it. They simply pose it as a sort of catch-22 situation, in which they revel. They would be perfectly happy to leave it as a conundrum to obstruct any amendment to the United Kingdom's constitution until eternity. Well, that is not on; that is not the agenda.
I strongly support the Bill and therefore want it all to be implemented. I reject the delaying device tabled by the Tory quarter of the House. It is wrong to refer to the Conservative side of the House because the Conservatives cannot man a whole side of it.

Mr. Robathan: There are more Conservative than Labour Members present.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is above the Gangway. There are other parties below it—but let us not get bogged down in minutiae such as that.
I have endured very nearly 20 years as a Scottish Member of the House—the Member for East Lothian. I sometimes wish that hon. Members would address the East Lothian question with as much interest as they have the West Lothian question over the years. During those 20 years, I have seen absurd changes in Scotland's local government, which were imposed on us by English Members. I have seen the poll tax imposed on my constituents on the strength of votes of English Members. There is no escaping that; it is a matter of fact. We have an inherent democratic deficit in Scotland.
Under the present settlement, we have a remote system of government. Much devolved power in Edinburgh is not subject to proper scrutiny. Indeed, Sir Malcolm Rifkind—

Dr. Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: I shall finish the reference to Sir Malcolm Rifkind. When debating an earlier devolution Bill back in—I think—1977, for which he voted, he said that Scotland was the only jurisdiction on the face of the earth without a legislature to revise its law. That was the problem then, it is still a problem, and that is why we need a legislature. We shall have it because that is what people have voted for.
Much further back, before the Union, my predecessor, Andrew Fletcher, warned about the shortcomings of what he described as an "incorporating Union". We have that incorporating Union, and it has not worked. We do not have accountable government in Scotland. The Bill is designed to address that. Andrew Fletcher supported the case for a Union, but said that there should be a Scottish Parliament. It has taken an awful long time to get back to that debate, but here we are, and I very strongly welcome it.
This incorporating Union is riddled with anomalies; it always has been. I acknowledge that there will be some more under the proposed settlement, although it is ludicrous for the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent to say that, by creating one new anomaly on

top of all the others, the whole edifice will come tumbling down. He must have very little confidence in the inherent strengths of the Union if he fears that prospect.

Mr. Grieve: There were anomalies in the old system, but the old system worked until the anomalies became unacceptable. When they did, Scottish Members of Parliament started to complain about decisions being taken collectively by this House. The referendum was held, and the decision was made to set up a Scottish Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that we believe that the anomalies created by the Bill will prove to be equally unacceptable, and that there is a complete refusal to address them at precisely the moment when they need to be addressed—when the changes are coming about?

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says that what will happen in the future will be intolerable, whereas what happened in the past was, in some way, tolerable. My plea in mitigation is that some of us have argued for constitutional change and for democratic accountability in the government of Scotland for a long time—since before the outrageous impositions to which I referred.
I accept that there will be anomalies in the future, and it is entirely proper that English Members of Parliament, in particular, should address them and make suggestions as to solutions. However, it is absurd to say that everything else in the United Kingdom should be put on hold until hon. Members representing English constituencies work out a way to deal with the problems. That can be debated in the future.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the effect of the new clause. The only obligation proposed by the new clause is for the Secretary of State to publish the review—it will not put on hold the process of devolution.

Mr. Home Robertson: I suspect that the only way in which the new clause could be selected for debate was to frame it in that way, but the intention is clear enough. We know what the Tories are up to.
I certainly welcome the new-found interest of Conservative Members in these affairs. I cannot help harking back over the years to all those occasions, late at night, when Scottish orders or amendments were debated in this House. Can these be the same Members of Parliament who grumbled about the fact that they were required to turn out as Lobby fodder to put through Tory legislation affecting Scotland? They have suddenly decided that the right to vote on devolved Scottish matters is a precious democratic right which they are determined to hang on to at all costs. I do not find that line terribly convincing.
Just as Scotland has had remote and unaccountable government for many years now, the same argument could be made for many parts of England. It would be entirely proper for regions of England to suggest changes


to the structure of government in England. That would be proper, and it is quite right that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is addressing that matter.

Dr. Fox: Why does the hon. Gentleman think it is logical to talk about Scotland as a nation with one form of Parliament for the whole of Scotland, but that England should be split into regions?

Mr. Home Robertson: I am not suggesting that. It is entirely a matter for the people of England if they want an English Parliament or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do not."] Then what on earth are Conservative Members fussing about? It is a matter for the people of England, and I respect that.

Mr. Swinney: The new clause suggests that there is still work to be done and that a solution has to be arrived at, but every time a solution is suggested, it is knocked down. I heard one Conservative Member knock down the suggestion made by another Conservative Member. Are not we being put through six and a half hours of debate about nothing because the Conservatives are not interested in the solution to the problem?

Mr. Home Robertson: Just for once, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a deliberate wrecking amendment. Well, it cannot be a wrecking amendment—if it had been, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would not have been selected. It is a deliberate catch-22 question which attempts to spin out the argument for all eternity to obstruct progress towards the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. It is at best mischievous, and at worst dangerous.
Hon. Members have said that there is a risk of whipping up nationalism, and we are enduring a little bit of that in Scotland just now. I would caution English Members about the risks of stirring up English nationalism. Look what happened to Michael Forsyth when he raised the credibility of Scottish nationalism. It did not do him an awful lot of good.
The new clause is, above all, mischievous. Carried to its logical conclusion, it would leave us with one Parliament with two categories of hon. Member. We would have a UK Parliament with one group of Members, eligible to vote on everything, and another group—second-class Members—who are eligible to vote only on Treasury affairs, defence, foreign affairs and social security. I cannot think of any other Parliament on the planet which has two categories of Member with different voting rights.

Mr. James Paice: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that it would be entirely improper for Members of this House to be somehow second-class. Does he understand that that is our concern about the Bill as it stands—that those Members elected for Scottish constituencies will have no power over the devolved issues in Scotland, but will be Members of this House, whereas the whole House will have powers over the same issues in England? An imbalance will be created in the responsibilities of hon. Members.

Mr. Home Robertson: Welcome aboard, I say to the hon. Gentleman. We have had that anomaly for years in

Scotland in terms of devolved powers over which we in Scotland have had no control. That is ludicrous and it has been uncomfortable for us. We are now addressing that matter, and Conservative Members are protesting far too much about it.
The debate is about the old canard, the West Lothian question, which is based on a flawed premise. It is a question which never recognised the fact that we have had so much administrative devolution in Scotland for more than a century. Administrative power has been devolved on a range on subjects to Edinburgh, with no democratically elected body to take proper control and to scrutinise the work of civil servants.
The West Lothian question overlooks the fact that the UK has never been a nation. It is a Union of nations with inherent diversities—and properly so. We should be building on the strengths that that diversity should be able to achieve. Two parts of the UK have voted to take the logical step of taking democratic control over their devolved powers—Wales and Scotland. It is likely, I hope, that Northern Ireland will follow suit shortly, and it is likely also that London will do so in its own way. That is logical progress for the Union, and it should strengthen the Union.
It is depressing that hon. Members who profess to be Unionists are trying to pick away at these anomalies in way which threatens the future of the UK. We have a strange alliance between the Conservative and Unionist party and the Scottish National party. The debate has indicated that the Conservative party wants Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to put everything on hold until equivalent constitutional arrangements can be devised for England or the English regions. That is up to them.
I come back to my East Lothian question. For 18 years, my constituents have been subject to legislation imposed on them by people who did not represent Scottish constituencies. Why has it been all right for hon. Members representing Eastbourne, East Devon or East Surrey to impose unwanted laws on East Lothian for 18 years, but suddenly—now that the situation is turned round and Scottish Members might briefly be in a position to influence legislation covering their constituencies—it is a constitutional outrage? That is inconsistent and absurd, and the new clause should be rejected.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I must repeat an earlier plea from the Chair for shorter speeches. An awful lot of Members want to contribute and they simply will not be able to do so unless speeches are shorter and we have fewer and less lengthy interventions.

Mr. David Curry: I come to the same conclusions as my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I may have started from a different point and come by a different route. I do not take the view that a unitary state has some sort of religious sanction. The arguments for devolution are well made.
Two years ago, when some of us were invited to make a presentation at Chequers, I was asked to do one on the constitution, for reasons that escaped me then and still escape me now. I argued the case for a federal structure


in the United Kingdom. In the light of the developments that were under way, which were threatened by a Labour party that we recognised was likely to win the election, I felt that we should prepare the inevitable response.
Whether one likes it or not, it is now inescapable that we will end up with an English Parliament, and I feel relatively at ease with that concept. I believed then that we had a centralised state and that that had two major disadvantages. One was that it made our relations within the European Union more difficult because our structures were not equivalent to those more commonly found on the continent, with which our partners were more at ease.
The second reason was that we had deprived of power a large number of the traditional institutions of local government in the United Kingdom, so the sensible job for Conservatives was first to reinvigorate existing organisations—before creating new ones—and secondly, given the sort of political challenge that we faced, to look towards a more radical solution, and that is what will happen.
My idea was that Members would be elected for both their national Parliament and the federal Parliament. I did not see why we needed two categories of Member. The residual functions of what one might call the federal Parliament would be such that, as little legislation is commanded by many of the issues with which it would be concerned, it would be entirely possible for myself, for example, to fulfil a role as a Member of an English Parliament and equally to be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament dealing with the issues relevant to it. We do not need two categories of Member of Parliament and we do not need to double the political strength of the bureaucracies that go with those.
Moreover, my proposal would achieve what this legislation manifestly will not—equivalence of responsibility within the United Kingdom. The one thing that Labour Members do not want to understand about our concerns is that, whatever the relative proportion of Members elected to this House from different parts of the United Kingdom under the present arrangements, their role has always been precisely equivalent. That will be lost with the legislation.
Whether or not English Members are determining Scottish affairs in votes on the Scottish revenue support grant or, before we all went upstairs, matters to be decided between 10 pm and 11.30 pm or between 11.30 pm and I am, and whether or not Scottish Members are using their votes to determine matters in England, does not matter. What matters is that our responsibilities and obligations are identical and we are elected under the same statute to perform the same role. We discharge the same role and responsibilities. That is why the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) represents his constituents. He is not a delegate to them. His job is to speak his mind as he believes is right on their behalf. That is what representative democracy is about and that is why the accusation that he has failed them is entirely misplaced.

Mr. Canavan: When there was a Stormont Parliament, was the role of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament in this place exactly the same as that of Members from Scotland, England and Wales?

Mr. Curry: They had the same rights. In their role as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, they

enjoyed exactly the same responsibilities, obligations and rights as the other Members. That is what is at the heart of the argument.
The present proposal would destroy that equilibrium. There are a number of false problems—the most false and the one that concerns me least is the fact that there may be more Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster than English Members and that the ratio may be disproportionate. I realise that that problem will be tackled at some indeterminate time and take the view that in a representative system there are bound to be inequalities of that sort. The nature of the constituencies is such that if one sought mathematical exactitude it would not work effectively in practical terms. So, I am not particularly disturbed about that problem and I do not think that my constituents are. Frankly, that issue is, at the moment, the dog that did not bark. In general elections, it is the dog that has not barked until now in the English constituencies. When my colleagues talk of the danger of English nationalism, I recognise that that may emerge, but none of us are in the business of wafting that fuse—none of us want to profit from that difficulty.
Three real problems exist, as opposed to the imaginary ones. The first is the unequal role of Members of Parliament as individuals under the proposed arrangement. What will Scottish Members do, not merely when they are here—they will not have responsibility for matters in Scotland because the Members of the Scottish Parliament will deal with those—but when they are in their constituencies, where someone else will take responsibility for the meat and drink of surgery business, with which we all have to deal?
I freely admit that I am not one of those Members who believe that surgery activity and that role is something for which I was born and for which I live. We all know that at times the role gets tedious, but we do it because we have to. When someone arrives with an envelope containing 30 years of newspaper cuttings, with the best will in the world one's heart sinks, but that is a job which has to be done. I wonder what some of the Scottish Members, who will be redundant here except for voting on English legislation, will do when they are at home.
The second problem is the nature of those responsibilities. If Scottish Members cannot decide the issues that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, by definition there is no point in having a Scottish Parliament. They can decide the equivalent issues here. They will be rather like members of the Committee of the Regions or the Economic and Social Committee, which are two of the least useful institutions invented by the European Union.
There is a question of legitimacy, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was right to raise it. One of the things that we learn from history is that no matter how competent successive monarchs might have been, if they were believed to be legitimate in their role they hung on for a great deal longer than anyone had the right to expect. The concept of illegitimacy—that there was somehow something wrong with what they were claiming to be—has been the fatal underminer of authority throughout our history.
The real danger is that we will have a group of people here who, with the best will in the world, we will want to fulfil their roles, but legitimacy will be denied to them by Members of Parliament who have much wider responsibilities to discharge than they have.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right. On his previous point—that he is not particularly concerned about the disproportionate over-representation of Scottish Members in this House—and reverting to the point that he has just made, will he concede that that disproportionate over-representation could give Scottish Members not merely a decisive vote on individual policies, but could sustain a Minister in place responsible for English policy when that Minister would not command a majority among Members representing English constituencies?

Mr. Curry: I entirely accept that my right hon. and learned Friend is arithmetically and logically correct. That would be the case. I was pointing out that we are either defending an arrangement that contains anomalies by definition because it has grown up historically, or looking for a much more radical suggestion—we will inevitably be forced to do so—rather than these provisional arrangements, which are unsustainable. That is what concerns me.
It is an unsustainable arrangement. For a number of reasons, there is no point in pretending that somehow regional Parliaments in England will put that right. First, the Government have deferred the decision, so we are not sure when that would happen. Secondly, we are not sure where it would happen, if it does. It will be left to the testing of opinion in the regions and whether they want to do that in the first place. Thirdly, regional Parliaments are to assume responsibility for the general supervision of the development agencies. The role envisaged for them is relatively limited and is nowhere near equivalent to the role of the Scottish Parliament.
Finally, the elected assembly for London provides an example of what a regional Parliament is likely to look like—it will certainly not have powers equivalent to those of the Scottish Parliament. The idea that regional assemblies will rebalance the equation is wholly illegitimate.
The representation of United Kingdom interests in Brussels will be another real problem. As we have heard, a vague role is envisaged for members of the Scottish Executive—it has even been hinted that they could represent the entire United Kingdom. Those of us with experience of discussions on such simple matters as fisheries will realise that that may not be as easily achieved as the theory suggests. There is a real danger that there will be an appetite for further influence and power in Europe, which could exaggerate our problems.
I believe that we have set out on a course that is not sustainable. Either we must find a further provisional solution, which will not be sustainable, or, regardless of whether it is our predilection, we will be driven to look for a more definitive arrangement for the United Kingdom, which accepts as inevitable the national aspirations in Scotland and Wales—I would not say that that was inherently undesirable—but which accommodates the imbalance that will flow from fulfilling

those aspirations. To prevent the fuse of English nationalism from burning and to avoid giving politicians the temptation to waft it, we must seek an arrangement that restores the equivalence that currently lies at the heart of our constitution. If, as I fear, we come to the conclusion that that can be achieved only by the establishment of an English Parliament, there is a great deal to be said for our promoting one constructively, rather than allowing it to happen by accident. We keep saying that our constitution was arrived at by accident. As we are now deliberately altering it, perhaps we should bring that process to its conclusion, logically.

Mr. John McAllion: I apologise for my absence from the first two hours of the debate. It is not true that I was bound, gagged and locked in a cupboard in the Whips' office, from which it took me two hours to escape. In fact, I am a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which was taking evidence upstairs—I apologise to the House for not having been able to attend the beginning of the debate.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), not so much because I agreed with his speech—although I did not disagree with all of it—but because, in its tone and rationality, it was by far the best contribution that I have heard from the Tory Benches in all the long hours that we have spent discussing the Bill in Committee and on Report. I only wish that such an attitude was shared by many more members of the official Opposition—if it were, the Conservative party might not be in such a sorry plight.
I regret having missed many of the earlier speeches, in particular that of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I was intrigued by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), who said that there was not a snappy version of the West Lothian question. If I may make an analogy with records and compact discs, the West Lothian question is an old 78. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow could have given us a rap version of the question, which would have made it more interesting than it usually is.
One of the central questions of the debate has been whether the West Lothian question is an anomaly or a constitutional outrage. I have detected that the constitutional outrage camp is firmly located in the ranks of the Tory Opposition. As they committed a number of constitutional outrages in the 18 years in which they were in government by using the unitary state against the people of Scotland, I come down firmly on the side that believes that the West Lothian question is an anomaly, and not a very remarkable one at that.
It is often argued, as it has been tonight, that the proposed system will be so anomalous as to be unsustainable—I have also heard it described as unacceptable. That is a poor argument, as the United Kingdom is itself an anomaly. It is a unitary state consisting of three and a bit nations—a unitary state with a multinational dimension. A unitary state with two completely separate legal systems—for England and Wales, and for Scotland—is an anomaly. A unitary state with two completely different systems of local government is an anomaly. There is supposedly only one national health service, but it is administered entirely differently in England and Wales and in Scotland. Moreover, of course, the established Churches in England


and in Scotland are altogether different. In fact, there is nothing consistent, coherent or unitary about the United Kingdom as a state. The old adage that the British constitution cannot be written down is justified only because if people ever saw it in black and white, they would not believe that anyone would have embarked on such a constitutional experiment as has been conducted over the past 300 years.
The United Kingdom is anomalous for a reason. The history of modern nationalism in Europe began with the French revolution, which gave birth to the idea that the modern nation state is based on the sovereignty of the people. As hon. Members will know from their history, the French revolution occurred in 1789, whereas the United Kingdom was formed as a unitary state in 1707–80 or so years before the birth of modern nationalism.
The United Kingdom was not a prototype for other nation states that developed later across Europe—they were based on the idea born in the French revolution. The United Kingdom emerged as a unitary state in the era of the ancien regime. The concept of the sovereignty of Westminster is based on the old monarchical idea of sovereignty and the divine right of kings. To this day, the House of Commons does not represent the popular sovereignty of the British people—sovereignty is held to be vested in the Crown in Parliament. We in Britain do not recognise what is recognised in every other nation state in Europe. We are out of touch with the rest of modern Europe; we are the anomaly.

Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman gives a very interesting interpretation of history—I was going to say analysis, but that would be too flattering. How does he compare the glorious revolution of 1688 with the French revolution in the controls and limits that were placed on the divine rights of kings and in the development of national sovereignty and the role of Parliament? As I understand these matters, the glorious revolution was considerably more important than he acknowledges.

Mr. McAllion: It is quite incredible that the hon. Gentleman should defend the glorious revolution of 1688 as the basis for governing Britain in the 21st century. I regard the 1688 revolution as an anti-Catholic, anti-Scotland conspiracy, but perhaps that is what attracts him to it—perhaps he wants such a sectarian system of government still to apply.

Mr. Robathan: I shall not take the hon. Gentleman back to 1688, yet, as he has suggested that the United Kingdom's constitution is rotten and that every other European country has had a better time because they recognise the sovereignty of the people and so on and on, how does he account for the fact that, in the lifetime of some hon. Members—although not mine or his—every other European country, with the exception of Switzerland, I believe, has been occupied, tramped across by armies or lived under some form of communist or fascist dictatorship?

Mr. McAllion: I suspect that that has more to do with the fact that Britain is an island than with its 17th-century constitution. If the hon. Gentleman believes that Hitler did not invade Britain because he was frightened of the divine right of kings, the sovereignty of Westminster or the 1688 revolution, he is not living in the real world.
Whether devolution is anomalous is neither here nor there in the context of the entire history of the United Kingdom. The status quo has been anomalous, as my hon. Friends have said time and again in these debates. Scotland has had different legal, educational, health and local government systems; its tradition of public housing has also been different from the one in England and Wales.
It is perfectly possible, under the status quo, for all the policies relating to those specifically Scottish matters to be overturned in the face of opposition from every single Scottish Member, simply by the use of the majority of English Members. No Conservative Member drew attention to that anomaly, which existed throughout the Conservative terms of office.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, despite what he has just said, that the facts show that, in more than 300 years, the United Kingdom Parliament has protected as distinct entities the Scottish legal and education systems, and all the other matters that he mentioned?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Lady has been too long away from Scotland. If she had been up there reading The Herald, as she claimed, she would know about the anglicisation of Scottish education and local government. Who in Scotland wanted the most recent reform of local government organisation? Even the Scottish Tories did not want that reorganisation, imposed on Scotland by an English majority in the House.
No United Kingdom Parliament since 1945 has ever overruled a majority of English Members. Time and again, a majority of English Members have overruled Scottish Members, but it has never happened the other way round. The Labour Governments of 1945–50, 1966-70 and 1974-79 were all elected with majorities over the Tories in England. They were backed by the English people in all those Parliaments.
There were only two Parliaments with a Conservative majority of English Members: 1964-66, and February to October 1974. At no point did a Labour Government impose on the people of England any legislative change that was opposed by the majority of English Members. It never happened to England, but it happened to Scotland time and again.
When we said that that was anomalous, the Tories said that anomalies did not matter, but as soon as they think that the boot might be on the other foot, anomalies suddenly matter and the position in which Scottish Members may be used to act against the will of the English is unsustainable. In fact, even now that cannot happen, because the majority of English Members agree with what we are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are away campaigning for devolved government in London, and good luck to them, although I have my own views on a directly elected mayor.

8 pm

Mr. Grieve: That argument would be more convincing if a single English Labour Member had come along to support it.

Mr. McAllion: English Labour Members do not have any problem with the Bill. It was trailed in the manifestos


on which they fought the general election. It was made clear to their voters that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would introduce a Bill for Scottish devolution. It is in their interests and those of their constituents to get the Bill through quickly. It is Conservative Members who are trying to thwart the will of the people by delaying the Bill.
Our debates are often badly attended, and only the people who want to speak turn up—everyone else sits in their rooms watching television or doing something more interesting—but Tory Members attend debates on devolution in large numbers. That shows how out of touch they are with people outside. The Bill is not considered controversial outside. It would be controversial if the Government did not deliver their commitment on devolution to the people of Scotland and Wales. The Conservative party is out of touch with opinion throughout the country.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The English people are not taking as close an interest as they should in the issue because the national newspapers in England are not taking it seriously; they give it no coverage. It is highly likely that this debate will get scant coverage tomorrow. By contrast, the Scottish press has gone into the issue in enormous detail. Perhaps that is why the Scottish National party is prospering.

Mr. McAllion: I can only take that as an attack on The Daily Telegraph and Mr. Rupert Murdoch. I am normally happy to join in attacks on both those great institutions. The hon. Gentleman did not worry about the English newspapers when Rupert Murdoch's The Sun backed the status quo in England at the same time as its Scottish version backed Scottish independence.
The press and the media are neither here nor there. People outside are intelligent and do not necessarily believe everything that they read—thank God for that—but make their own decisions after listening to politicians' and others' arguments. They make an intellectual judgment about the future of this country, and the judgment that they made at the general election was that it was time for constitutional change. The Conservative party must come to terms with that, or it will never make a comeback.
We heard earlier about the serious problem of an English backlash and the emergence of English nationalism. I see no problem with the kind of nationalism that delivered a yes, yes vote in the Scottish referendum last September. The only kind of English nationalism that would cause a problem is ethnic nationalism in the style of the National Front and Mr. Le Pen. If any Tory Members want to whip up the flames of that kind of nationalism, they are not doing themselves, or democracy, any favours.
If the nationalism that emerges in England is the civic nationalism that has emerged in Scotland and Ireland, and to a lesser extent in Wales, where is the problem? Why cannot the civic nationalities that live here co-exist peacefully and democratically, and go into the future in a different formation from that of the past 300 years? I am in favour of the English people rediscovering their national soul, because they are a fine nation.

Mr. Robathan: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says. There is no harm in nationalism.

The trouble is that in all my 46 years, I have never seen a sign in England that says "Scots out", but emblazoned in big letters by the motorway just outside Edinburgh is the slogan, "English out". Nationalism and racism can walk hand in hand. In this country, we have been very tolerant as a whole, but the "English out" nastiness of Scottish nationalism is very worrying.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said. There are different kinds of nationalism. The "English out" Scottish nationalism is roundly condemned by every hon. Member, including Scottish nationalist Members. [Interruption.] They daily condemn such nationalism, and it is unfair to make allegations against them that are simply not true. Civic nationalism simply wants democratic control over a country's own affairs, irrespective of ethnic backgrounds.

Mr. Swinney: There seem to be some rumblings from Tory Members about the stance of my party. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is absolutely right about our condemnation of "English out" sentiments. We have condemned such nationalism throughout our history. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) mentioned earlier my party's commitment to the democratic and civic process. That is the hallmark of our politics. If the Tory party cannot recognise that, that is another example of its being out of touch with Scottish politics.

Mr. McAllion: That is a fair point. Many of those who defended the status quo until the general election had never come to terms with nationalism. If asked whether they were English or British, many could not make their minds up. I suspect that there would be many different answers if we asked all Tory Members whether they were English or British, or English first and British second, or British first and English second.
Nationalism never raised its head in the old unitary state, but it has now emerged. It is not the ethnic nationalism that erupted in Bosnia, but a civic nationalism. It is emerging in part in England as well, and can be seen in the campaigns for northern assemblies. People want democratic control over their own affairs, and there is nothing wrong with that. If the Conservative party continues to denounce civic nationalism, it will remain in the political wilderness, and deservedly so.
Conservative Members are not above using a bit of ethnic stirring themselves. Many of the arguments that we have heard tonight have focused on the notion that poor old English taxpayers are subsidising junkies up in Scotland who are getting all our money; but that is simply not true. There is no question of its being true, or even being a factor, after devolution. I am surprised that no one has yet jumped to his or her feet to mention the Barnett formula, but before that happens, let me remind hon. Members that that deals only with identifiable public expenditure.
Billions of pounds worth of Government expenditure is passed every year by the United Kingdom Parliament, but never taken account of when the Barnett formula is applied. The formula excludes, for example, expenditure on Government Departments, such as the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and the Treasury—all located here in the heart of England and all costing the British taxpayer a whole load of money.


One does not hear Scottish Labour Members saying, because of that, that we are subsidising the subsidy junkies down here in England—because we do not believe that. Similarly, all kinds of expenditure traditionally used by Conservative Governments favours many people living in the south of England compared with people living elsewhere. There is mortgage tax relief, for example. I know that that has been reduced in recent years, but it directed huge subsidies to people in the south of England where house prices are high. For many years huge, reliefs were given to people in the south, and nobody in Scotland complained. Nobody raised a flag and said that mortgage tax relief was subsidising junkies in the south of England.
To this day, the upper limit on national insurance contributions is a hand-out to people on very high earnings, most of whom live here in the south of England. Those people are being subsidised by British taxpayers in the rest of the country. Tax relief on private pension contributions, too, favours England far more than Scotland, because of the sheer numbers. There is also the London underground and the docklands development—and the millennium dome; let us not forget that, because it is being built down here.
One of the benefits of having a Scottish Parliament will be that when we enter into negotiations with the Westminster Parliament about the level of public expenditure in Scotland, it will insist on transparency concerning where the tax revenues are coming from throughout the United Kingdom, as well as where the expenditure is going. Until we have that process, it will make no sense to go back to the old-style arguments about English taxpayers being expected to support subsidy junkies in Scotland. That argument is not true; it is not taken seriously in Scotland—or, I suspect, in England either.
We are told that new clause I is necessary because Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament will still have a vote here after devolution. There are a number of possible solutions to the West Lothian question. The most extreme solution, I suppose, would be to cut the numbers of Scottish Members at Westminster to absolute zero. [Interruption.] I see that there is some support for that idea on the Tory Benches. If we took that course, the West Lothian question would finally disappear and never rear its ugly head again.
However, it is unjust and unsustainable to suggest that that would be a solution to the West Lothian question, because fiscal decisions, for example, will continue to be taken in this Parliament and will continue to affect people living in Scotland and Wales, as well as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The basic and higher rates of income tax, value added tax, corporation tax and levels of tax relief all affect Scotland—and of course, Scotland would not pay any of those taxes if it had no representation in this House. So there has to be Scottish representation here after devolution, and Conservative Members must take that fact on board.
There is no solution that does not include Scottish Members continuing to represent Scotland in this House. If people want to get rid of Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament altogether, there is only one solution, which would be to make Scotland completely independent—but I suspect that that is not what Conservative Members want. But perhaps it is. Perhaps there are some English nationalists among the Tories who would like to see the back of Scotland altogether.
Another suggestion was made in the 1978 Act, section 66 of which—I see the ears of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State beginning to prick up as he remembers the old battles fought over devolution in 1978—required that where a Bill
which does not relate to or concern Scotland
was carried by a vote in which the votes of Scottish Members were decisive, there had to be a second vote 14 days later which would exclude Scottish Members. By that mechanism, it was hoped, the West Lothian question could be solved.
However, there were, of course, several serious objections to such a solution. First, as has already been said, it would make Cabinet Government impossible. The elected Cabinet could not continue to rule the country if English business in the House were conducted in that way. Then there would be the problem of how we defined business that did not concern Scotland. Who would define it?
Would the Scottish Parliament have a role in defining such business? Would there have to be a joint committee between the Westminster and the Scottish Parliaments to decide what constituted such business? A class of in-and-out Members would be created—second-rate Members who were allowed to vote decisively only on issues relating to Scotland.
I know that Enoch Powell still has some admirers on the Conservative Benches, but in the 1970s, he came out against such a solution, because he saw that it was unacceptable. The constitutional unit has carried out a great deal of research into the implications of devolution for the United Kingdom Parliament, and it recognised that any kind of in-and-out system was unacceptable.

Mrs. Gorman: Enoch Powell also said in the 1970s that one cannot have a semi-nation—that it is inevitable that such a nation would become a devolved nation.

Mr. McAllion: I thought that Enoch Powell argued that a semi-nation was a devolved nation. I think that the hon. Lady may have meant "an independent nation". She will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with Enoch Powell. I merely mentioned his position because there may be some Powellites on the Opposition Benches who favour an in-and-out solution. If there are, they should realise that their mentor did not support such a system in any sense.

Mr. Leigh: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the absurdity of trying to create two classes of Members in this House. It would not work, and would indeed make Cabinet Government impossible. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that the only practical solution, in the minds of many, would be to create a full English Parliament? Does he accept that if that happened, the English Parliament would become dominant and the United Kingdom Parliament would inevitably become an empty husk?

Mr. McAllion: I accept some of that. I was about to deal with the constitutional unit, which said that the only real answer to the West Lothian question was federalism—home rule all round. That is the only neat and


proper solution. One objection to that idea is that there is no political will in England for it, as far as I can detect, at this stage.
However, English people will have to come to terms with the reality that if they want to solve the West Lothian question, that is how they can do it. I see no problem. An English Parliament would be separate from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly; the federal parliament of the United Kingdom would be separate from the English Parliament, and would deal only with United Kingdom issues. Representation in the federal parliament would be completely separate from representation in the English Parliament—so where is the problem? I do not see one.
The only problem is that English people are not aware of the constitutional implications of the kind of revolution that is now taking place. We must remember that devolution is not an isolated endgame, which should be seen as separate from the rest of the constitutional revolution being carried out by the Labour Government. It is part of a process that includes reform of the House of Lords, a referendum on the voting system for the Westminster Parliament, regional government across England and other radical changes to local government, and the European convention on human rights being introduced into the laws of Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Is this a filibuster?"] No, I am not filibustering; I am simply making certain points that need to be made in the debate.
Hon. Members must realise that the process will carry on within Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. It will not end here. We have nothing to fear from that process. England has nothing to fear. Indeed, if we are ever to modernise our economy, we must first modernise the constitution, which predates every other constitution in modern Europe.
The West Lothian question is a dinosaur. Until we put it behind us, we shall never be able to face the realities of the 21st century. For once, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall be delighted to join my right hon. Friends in government in the Lobby to vote down and consign to the dustbin of history the West Lothian question, along with all those who support it.

Mr. Hogg: I know that you want hon. Members to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will be; I will take no more than 10 minutes. I approach the debate as a believer in devolution. I long ago came to the view that it would be wrong for the House to withhold devolution from the people of Scotland if that is what they want.
I suspect that devolution is not in the interests of the people of Scotland, but that does not matter. They will decide their own business, and we must not stand in their way. Therefore, I am a friend of devolution on that basis. I have come to that conclusion from the study of history—conscious, I think, that because of what we did in Ireland—

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Hogg: May I pursue my argument, and then give way?
Because we withheld home rule from Ireland, we brought about a situation that led to the division of the United Kingdom, then including Ireland. My own belief is that if we do not agree to devolution, the threat to the Union as a whole is much greater than if we do.

Mr. Dewar: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks with sincerity when he makes that point, but does he agree that that is a rather good justification for the pre-legislative referendum that we ran? I suspect that if we had not had that decisive vote before the Bill was considered in the House, desperate efforts would have been made to defeat it in the House, on the ground that there was no consent in Scotland, and the House of Lords might have been encouraged to do likewise.

Mr. Hogg: I have accepted the need for devolution at least from the time I first entered the House in 1979. In any event, the need for consent could have been met by a post-legislation referendum, which would have been equally reassuring to Conservative Members.
Assuming we are going to have devolution, which I welcome, I am anxious that it should be a permanent settlement and one that is sustainable. My fear is that, unless the settlement that we are putting in place now addresses the entirety of the concerns of the United Kingdom, is put in an overall context and is fair to England, it will not be durable. I am extremely concerned about the English backlash, and about the fact that the specific proposals to be put in place are not fair to England and do not address the wider issues of the United Kingdom as a whole.
I will not repeat the various criticisms of the proposals, save in summary form—too many Scottish Members of Parliament; the fact that spending is too high in Scotland; the fact that the West Lothian question remains; the fact that all the other parts of the United Kingdom will have a Parliament or an assembly, but England will not. We can debate the way out, but one fact that is wholly plain is that what is now being put to the House does not address the English question and is not set in the context of the solution, which is a permanent settlement for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I have played with various concepts in the past—for example, the federal system, the practice of designating business to be English-only business and the establishment of an English Grand Committee—but my final personal conclusion is that we shall have to have a fully federal system with an English Parliament. I am struck by the number of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are also coming to that conclusion, which I believe is shared by many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches. One depressing feature of the debate is that there has been a tendency for Labour Members to say that, because the Scots have suffered what they perceive to be an injustice for a long time, we are now going to commit an injustice against the English. That is not a proper way in which to bring about a durable settlement as it is certain to bring about resentment and the destruction of anything we put in place.
I have spoken in summary form and no more, because the arguments have been deployed by many right hon. and hon. Members. I believe in devolution, but I want it to be


sustainable and durable. For that purpose, it must be fair and address the totality of our constitutional problems. It is possible to criticise the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), but it does offer a way forward. Anyone who is seriously concerned about creating a durable and sustainable constitutional settlement for our country and maintaining the Union should support it.

Mr. Dewar: I grateful for the opportunity to speak at this stage, although not with any intention of choking the debate—the House will be glad to know that we have two and a half hours to go, so many interesting speeches will no doubt yet be made. This is an important debate, which I have found genuinely interesting; I have sat through almost all of it and I shall certainly try to last through most of the rest.
I should like to make one small preliminary point to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). He is, on the whole, rather a nice man, but he tries on occasion to whip himself up into a lather and his suggestion that we have somehow obstructed debate on this issue is not a charge which stands up to any scrutiny. There was some difficulty: there was an arranged timetable on 4 March, when we reached these matters during the Committee stage; there was an unexpected statement and no arrangements had been made in the timetable to accommodate that; there were then a large number of points of order and other difficulties, largely raised by Opposition Members; and then—I make no criticism except in the context of the charge—there was an unusually long speech by a distinguished Conservative grandee, which raised the temperature in the House, as he no doubt anticipated it would. We were happy to accede to Conservative suggestions that we have six and a half hours to debate a fairly narrow group of amendments, so I think it fair to say that we have approached the issue in a reasonable spirit. We intend to continue to do so.

Mr. Swinney: I understand the rationale for the allocation of time to this subject, but is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned that debate on some of the more complex aspects of the Bill, which have yet to be considered in the remaining stages, will be somewhat truncated because we have spent so long on an extended West Lothian question debate? That worries several hon. Members, who are concerned about the complex matters that we have yet to discuss.

Mr. Dewar: I hope that we shall be able to deal with various contentious matters that may lie ahead in the remaining stages, but I also hope that the hon. Gentleman does not feel that today has been wasted. We have had a fascinating opportunity to study the anatomy of the Conservative party, post-defeat. It has been genuinely interesting to watch the Conservative party in the House of Commons wrestle with the future, and largely lose. However, they will have to continue the struggle and some interesting consensus may form on the Conservative Benches in the months and years that lie ahead.
This has not been a waste of debate and, although I accept that the subject is one that most hon. Members find fascinating, if repellant, I have found the debate instructive. There have occasionally been tough touches, for example, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) accused me of deploying an acerbic

wit. Of course, I deny it all and I have no intention of laying myself open to a repeat of that charge during the rest of this particular performance.
I do not say it in the spirit of a barrack-room lawyer and a pedant, but I was a little surprised by the right hon. Member for Devizes, who kept talking about an independent inquiry; there is a fairly important distinction to be made, because that is not at all what the new clause calls for. The new clause instructs the Secretary of State to carry out a review and, while I do not know what sort of review would be expected of me—assuming I still held that office—if the new clause was accepted, it would certainly not be an independent inquiry of the sort the right hon. Gentleman hinted at in his speech.
We heard exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and Conservative Members about their obstructing progress on the Bill; that accusation was strongly denied. It is worth reminding the House that we are considering new clause 1, but that amendment No. 2 is grouped with it. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned the amendment at any point in his opening speech, but I presume that he holds to it. It would, in effect, ensure that no part of the Bill could be implemented until after the review had been concluded, so there would be—perhaps justifiably; that is a matter for argument—a considerable delay while we went through the review process. As the charge of obstruction was denied, it is worth putting that point on the record.

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to be a pedant either, but amendment No. 2 only requires the Secretary of State to publish the result of the review, and no more than that.

Mr. Dewar: If the review is to be the thorough-searching review that we understand the right hon. Member for Devizes wants, that will clearly delay matters quite considerably. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will not resent my saying that I cannot think of anyone who is better equipped than he to be pedantic—

Mr. Hogg: Apart from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dewar: Apart, perhaps, from my good self. The right hon. and learned Gentleman got there before me.
I was interested also when the right hon. Member for Devizes firmly said, in reply to some questions, that options had been canvassed in the past. It became clear that he would not canvass any of those options in his speech. To be fair, other Members have done so, but the right hon. Gentleman certainly did not. It was to be an inquiry, an inquiry and an inquiry. We were being asked to consider whether someone else could find an answer to the problem that worried the right hon. Gentleman. He seemed determined not to make a contribution himself.

Mr. Ancram: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State was in the Chamber when previous debates took place on these matters, during which I canvassed various options, and did so at some length. Having done so, I felt that it was only right on this occasion not to weary the House with the same analysis all over again.


As for the structure of the new clause, I am sure that the Secretary of State, of all people, will know that there are certain constraints within which we must work in tabling new clauses in relation to amendments that have previously been tabled to Bills on Report.

Mr. Dewar: That is a technical defence, but no doubt an ingenious one. If the right hon. Gentleman really wished to spare us further analysis on his part, that is small mercy. It would be churlish not to thank him. However, I would have been interested in hearing some of his analyses.
Some rather odd arguments have been advanced and I shall turn to some of them. I was rather irritated by the suggestion that, once devolution is in order, Scottish Members—however conscientious and hard-working—might find it difficult to occupy their time in the House. That is not so. Whatever one thinks of the balance of the division of responsibilities between Westminster and Edinburgh, there is no doubt that, in Scottish terms, major areas of interest and importance remain at Westminster. Labour Members think that it is a logical split, but that is a subject for legitimate debate.
Anyone who wished to develop an interest in, for example, foreign affairs, defence, macro-economics or fiscal measures—in other words, the plethora of legislative provisions that maintain the framework of the United Kingdom and its level playing field, whether it be company law, labour and employment law or financial services regulation—would find that there was a great deal to be done. It may be that Scottish Members will become more noted for being well-informed specialists rather than for what we tend to be at present—being enforced generalists, because of the spread of Scottish Office responsibilities. The idea that Scottish Members will not be able to make a contribution at Westminster, or to find issues of importance in which they can get their teeth, seems peculiar to me.
It has been a fascinating debate. However, I am not sure exactly what significance to put to it. Clearly, the Opposition Whips have been at work, and I congratulate them on that.

Mr. Grieve: I can assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition Whips have not been at work. The debate does not require them to be at work. We are debating a matter which is of the deepest concern to us. Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is of the deepest concern to us because the issue is raised with us by our constituents? That is why it is a subject which we wish to debate. It is remarkable that not one Labour Member who represents an English constituency has bothered to turn up for the debate.

Mr. Dewar: I feel tempted to say that I rest my case. I am tempted also—I shall not let myself fall into this temptation, because I might have to read them—to give the hon. Gentleman three minutes, so that he does not have time to write them, to get some of his constituency letters, which set out at length his constituents' concerns about the West Lothian question. I intend to return to that point.
I shall make a serious point. I accept that there is something going on in the Conservative party on this issue. I accept that there are concerns and worries. Some

prominent Conservative Members have turned up for the debate. I do not think for a moment that they are Whips' fodder. They are in the Chamber to express points of view and concerns. I do not mock that. A significant number of prominent Conservative Members have been present for the debate, including the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). It is an interesting phenomenon.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk, who was once a sturdy burgher of Shotts, made an interesting point when he said, to take up the argument of other Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), that his constituents were not worried about these matters at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that they started worrying when he drew their attention to them. That is an interesting comment. If an influential and well-respected Member says to his constituents, "This is an outrage, a difficulty and a threat to constitutional stability", it may be, at least within the South Norfolk constituency party, that constituents will start to be worried. The question arises whether it is wise to make these matters an issue. Is it necessary to make them an issue? Is it counter-productive to do so? I make that point seriously.

Mr. MacGregor: Like the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I have been concerned about this issue in relation to Scottish devolution for the past 20 years. However, it has become a reality only since the general election. In England, not a great deal of media interest is focused on the issue. There is hardly any coverage of it in the English newspapers. I know that the coverage has been huge in Scotland because I still have some connections with Scotland—not necessarily Shotts but elsewhere. As I have said, there has not been that sort of coverage in England.
I make the serious point to the Secretary of State that, as soon as the proposed legislation is in place and things start happening in this Parliament, the issue will become extremely serious. It is then that people will see what is happening.

Mr. Dewar: That is an interesting comment. It seems that something of a split argument is being advanced. Undoubtedly some hon. Members are saying, "We must do something about this because English opinion is outraged." Other responsible Members are saying, "Sadly, English opinion is not outraged. However, I am outraged and, fortunately, when I tell people about these matters they become ratty as well." I suggest that we should start to consider whether we want to elevate the matter so that it has the status of a major public issue.

Mr. Christopher Gill: As an English Member who has had a self-denying ordinance for the past 11 years on Scottish business, this is the first time that I have spoken on matters to do with Scotland. It is not necessarily the fact that those who have spoken in the debate are outraged, or that their constituents are outraged. Will the Secretary of State not agree or recognise that part of our function as parliamentarians is to use our foresight and judgment to flag up what is likely to happen if he continues down the path that the Government have outlined?


Will the right hon. Gentleman please give me the assurance that he recognises that we English Members of Parliament have concern for the future?

Mr. Dewar: I see the crowded Benches opposite me and I have listened to the speeches. I have already acknowledged that some Members of Parliament are concerned about the issue, but I was probing the extent to which it has been artificially inflated and the extent to which it is causing genuine feeling.
I understand the point that, after devolution, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk could say that controversial legislation had been forced on his constituents by my vote and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). We all play that game occasionally, and legitimately so. These days, we are given to saying that we lost a vote in the House of Lords, but would have carried the day if it had not been for the hereditary peers. I am not sure to what extent people warm to or respond to that.
The arithmetic of the House of Commons has been mentioned. Since 1945, the Scottish tyranny, if I may use that word, has existed as an actual threat, as distinct from one that might have been used, on an enormously limited number of occasions. Such events are very rare and will become more rare because of the certain reduction in the number of Scottish Members at Westminster, which I shall discuss in a moment.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is repeating what many of his hon. Friends have said. Does he accept that if the Government introduced proportional representation, that pattern would dramatically change and the chances of Scottish Members holding the balance of power would greatly increase?

Mr. Dewar: I am not sure that that follows. There would be a different House of Commons under full proportionality. Whoever had his nose in front would not get the substantial seats bonus that comes with first past the post, so the number of hon. Members on other Benches would swell to represent the percentage of the vote that they received. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it would not necessarily benefit my party. It would not benefit my party in Scotland in the short term, although we have gone down that road as a matter of principle. I never tire of claiming that it is the best example of charitable giving this century in British politics. This fear is much argued, but I am not sure that it is a fear of great substance, although I accept that we will all have to learn new lessons and look at a new profile if we change the voting system. The Government would not do that; the people would decide in a referendum, if and when the time comes.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State fails to understand the point. There may not yet be widespread concern in England at what the Government are doing, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said, that is because there is not the media attention. There is no doubt that there is increasing concern, however. As people become aware of the magnitude of what the Secretary of State and his

colleagues are proposing for the United Kingdom—not only for Scotland—there could be a serious backlash. Concern is growing.

Mr. Dewar: That is a matter of judgment and opinion which we could discuss. That is an unwise offer, but I do not know what the other threats are. The arrival of an elected mayor in London is, at least in prospect, comparatively popular. [Interruption.] Let us wait and see. I must not wander into that matter.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No. I have given way a lot and it would be appreciated if I pushed on. I have rehearsed my argument and, although it is not accepted by Conservative Members, I still believe that it is largely valid.
The last accolade that I would ever seek would be to be known as a good House of Commons man. That is always a dangerous honour to bestow on any human being, but, in a sense, I am defending my position in House of Commons terms. I believe in the sovereignty of this Parliament, which was in place before the devolution settlement and remains in place after it. The Scottish Parliament is a creation of legislation and is therefore a creation of votes in the House of Commons. We cannot get the Bill through without the support of a wide sweep of Members of Parliament from every part of the country.
Hon. Members may look at me as though I had two heads, on the ground that there is a whipping system, but the Bill is a manifesto commitment. Hon. Members who say that that is not a valid argument should think about the damage that they are doing to the right of any Government to table any controversial Bill and pass it. It is just as valid for us to rely on the argument about the way in which the House of Commons works as it was for the Conservative Government in the past and perhaps will be for Conservative Governments in future years.
The Westminster Parliament remains sovereign. If the current generation of its Members decides that, for the better government of the country, certain powers should be devolved to a Parliament or a body outwith Westminster, so long as that decision was taken by the whole of the House of Commons properly and democratically, it would be constitutionally legitimate and well within the parliamentary system in which we all operate. That point was made extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). That is the first bulwark on which I rely. We have a majority for this measure, and, unusually, we have unanswerable public consent following the referendum. We are entitled to put this legislation through.
8.45 Pm
Some hon. Members who may support me more generally on this issue are worried that the House of Commons, having given, can, in extremis, take away. It would be very unwise to do so, and almost everyone who has spoken accepts that. However, it is still a possibility.
Points have been made about the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. Undoubtedly, as this century unwound, there was a move to increase Scottish representation. There was a floor on the number of MPs:


we had 71 in the House of Commons. That gave us a considerable advantage pro rata. The justification was that, given the distinct and separate stream of Scottish legislation taken at Westminster, that particular work load had to be recognised through Scottish representation. Devolution quite properly alters that position.
Despite the concerns of many of my colleagues, we decided together that we would reduce our representation. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) used the word "arbitrary", because it was not an arbitrary decision. We said that we would remove the artificial floor and invite the boundary commission to apply to Scotland exactly the same criteria that are applied in England, so that representation would be on a comparable basis. That was right, and was part of our attempt to get a balance on the settlement that we were establishing and to ensure that it was generally seen as fair.
I believe that the settlement is fair, but I accept that there is a balance of advantage. I realise that there are anomalies and difficulties. The House of Commons works on the basis of consent, and the usual channels operate. We reach compromises and agreements. Some people complain that they are reached behind the scenes surreptitiously, but that is not the point. One would not design a Parliament that operates in that way, but we all want to make it work. The point was fairly made by a number of hon. Members that our system is tolerant. I would claim tolerance as one of the great attributes of the British political system. I probably dislike as many Labour colleagues as Tories. Fortunately, in both cases it is a comparatively small number, but they are cherished and carefully defined.
We work on the basis of agreement and mutual tolerance. The strength of the devolution settlement is that it recognises the way in which the Union was constructed and the survival of our separate legislative and legal systems. That has great advantages, and it enriches our democracy. I hope that it will not become the bruising issue that some people suggest. I say that sincerely.

Mr. Ancram: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a simple, straightforward question? Does he or does he not agree that there is a fundamental problem as a result of what has become known as the West Lothian question?
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer another question? If his proposals are considered so satisfactory in Scotland, why is the Scottish National party doing so well in the polls?

Mr. Dewar: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not want to go into a long digression about the current polls in Scotland. I think that the polls have a lot of shaking down to do in the next year.[Interruption.] I do not intend to be diverted from my argument, but let me say that I do not take very seriously, for instance, a poll that showed support for the Liberal Democrats at 2 per cent. That does not strike me as likely.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: It was all in my constituency.

Mr. Dewar: I note the hon. Gentleman's becoming modesty. He clearly hopes that the whole 2 per cent. will be at Lochaber. [Interruption.] I am sorry; that was the wrong constituency. It could have been a tragedy.
There have been three polls recently. One showed the SNP to be 5 per cent. ahead of Labour on one question—a question that was clearly important, but it was just one question, against the background of a high satisfaction rating for the Labour Government. The other two polls, on the same question, showed Labour to be 5 and 12 per cent. ahead respectively. There is much work to be done, and we all take these matters seriously. The SNP, wisely, says that it is not counting its chickens and that it, too, will work hard. I look forward to that, but I urge caution.
Let me turn to a more important issue: the issue that we are debating. The right hon. Member for Devizes asked me whether I considered the West Lothian question to be an absolute problem—a fundamental problem. I think that it could be a fundamental problem if it was mishandled and became a shibboleth. We do not want to turn this into a crisis, but I think that, on balance, it is advantageous to proceed with the scheme. I meet many of those who voted no in the referendum. I have talked to a number of those people, who have said, "We did not like certain aspects of the scheme—on balance we were against it—but we are now determined to make it work, and to get the best that we can out of it". The approach in the House of Commons should be on those broad lines: that would be sensible, and in all our interests.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I think that this is called revisiting one's past.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As one of the few who opposed devolution when it was proposed by both main parties, let me ask the Secretary of State a genuine and serious question. If he thinks there is a problem, what on earth is wrong with asking an independent group to conduct an inquiry now? If a problem may arise, what is wrong with accepting the new clause? Who will be angry? Will Labour Members be angry? Will Conservative Members be angry? Will SNP Members be angry? If it is possible that a big problem will arise, what is wrong with accepting the new clause and trying to find a solution?

Mr. Dewar: As the years go by, I am consistently amazed at the hon. Gentleman's ability to ask—with the simplicity and naivety of a child—"What would be the difficulty?" He knows full well what the difficulty would be, and how it would be interpreted. I have observed the hon. Gentleman for 20 years on the European question. I have never doubted his sincerity, but I have reservations about his sense of proportion and his starting point, and on this occasion I do not think that I can indulge him.

Sir Teddy Taylor: What were the other occasions?

Mr. Dewar: I remember meeting the hon. Gentleman in the Cloisters shortly after his translation to the south of England. I vividly recall his explaining that his whole idea was to establish a reputation as a Southend nationalist.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Southend, East.

Mr. Dewar: If I ever visit Southend and find the hon. Gentleman digging a large trench, I shall know that Southend is about to float off as a tax haven.


This discussion is becoming ludicrously overblown. Let me return to the point, and—comparatively briefly—deal with an argument that I, at least, am taking seriously. I hope that most of the points that I have made so far are being taken seriously as well.
I find it interesting watching the Conservative party try to deal with this problem. The hon. Member for—is it Rushcliffe?

Mr. Leigh: Gainsborough.

Mr. Dewar: Oh, Gainsborough. Sorry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rushcliffe is Ken Clarke."] Yes. Never mind. It is just as well that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is away: I suspect that the comparison would not have pleased him.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in a sense put it briskly. He said that there were only two possibilities. He said that there was a problem—he started from that point—and said that the only thing that the Conservatives could do was lump it or hope that there was total independence for Scotland. I do not believe that that view is shared by many Conservative Members.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, whom I now have at least in my mind's eye, if not physically before me, argued that federalism was not the answer. He did not want a federal solution, but did look back to the sort of in-out solution that Gladstone rejected in the 1890s in the Irish debates. However, the right hon. Members for South Norfolk and for Skipton and Ripon, and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and Hykeham—

Mr. Hogg: North Hykeham.

Mr. Dewar: Precision again. Those three respected and experienced members of the Conservative parliamentary party all argued, at least to varying degrees, that federalism was the solution to this problem. It is clear that there is quite a lot not only of disunity, but of thinking going on. It will be interesting to see whether and how that develops, but, for the reasons that I have explained, Labour Members do not start with the same analysis of the seriousness of the issue, in terms of its being a major problem. Therefore, we will have to hold our fire.
There have been many attempts at this. Obviously, an English Grand Committee would not necessarily be satisfactory. Some people may have thought—I do not know whether the right hon. Member for South Norfolk did so—about the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which is an interesting visitor from the past and has not met for 20 years. It consists of all English Members of Parliament plus five. I could never imagine what the plus five were going to do, but it has not met for 20 years. That perhaps makes the point, which was made in another context by Labour Members, that there is a different level of interest in these matters in England.
There is a suggestion that, in the parliamentary party, there are people who are so alarmed by what they see as an anomaly that they want to drive towards a federal solution, but I am not sure that, in England, they would take the same view among the population generally about the difficulty of the situation, particularly as the worries

and stories about the effect and impact of the Scottish vote will not be self-evident, because it does not exist in the form that is being suggested.

Mr. MacGregor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: Yes, but this is the last time that I shall do so.

Mr. MacGregor: Is not the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman has put forward various sops that have no equivalents to the Scottish Parliament, and why, over the past 20 years, the Labour party has failed to address the matter, that the only logical and real equivalents to a Scottish Parliament that deal with the West Lothian question are not, on the whole, in most cases, favourable to the Labour party?

Mr. Dewar: I do not want necessarily want to get into that argument, because the right hon. Gentleman and I would simply have a stand-off on it. I made passing reference to what we have done in terms of the voting system in the Scottish Parliament. We had an annus mirabilis in 1997. We received 46 per cent. of the vote. We are going to have to receive 50 per cent., or as near as damn it, to form a majority Administration, so to say that Labour Members are always interested just in self-interest, and that self-interest and party interest always overrule judgment on constitutional issues is hard to maintain. Therefore, he is being uncharacteristically ungracious to us, but I can see that I will have to leave him to harbour his sinister and dark, dark thoughts about our motives.
I am coming to an end because I have spoken for an inordinately long time. I apologise for that, but it has been an interesting debate. It is interesting that, time and again in the debate, right hon. and hon. Members have said that they object to devolution because it creates different classes of hon. Members. I think that, in a strange way, the complaint is the exact opposite—that devolution has come and that, because Scottish Members are being left with exactly the same rights as every other hon. Member, it has not created different classes of hon. Members. Most Conservative Members are arguing that we should have different classes of hon. Members—such as hon. Members who can vote only in an English Grand Committee, or hon. Members, including Scottish Members, who are knocked out of dealing with one type of situation or another.
Most of the solutions that are being suggested are ones that will build in differences and distinctions. In extremis, those solutions may well be justified. However, the House has always worked on the basis that every hon. Member has the same rights. If the House has decided that certain business should, as I said, be spilled to a subordinate Parliament or a different legislative forum, that is not necessarily a reason for introducing distinctions between hon. Members—which most of the rhetoric and speeches in this debate have held as abhorrent.

9 pm

Dr. Fox: The point that has been made is that those who are elected to the House from English constituencies will be able to ask questions on the health and education


of their constituents, but that those elected from Scottish constituencies will not be able to do so in the House. Where is the equality?

Mr. Dewar: The House has decided that health and education in Scotland should be dealt with in a different forum, and that that business will therefore not be before the House of Commons. However, every hon. Member will have equal rights in considering the business that is properly before the House. Most of the solutions being offered propose that that should not continue to be so. One can argue such a case, but one cannot do so on the basis that the trouble with devolution is that it will make for different classes of hon. Members. That is logically not a tenable position. The matter is of some importance in the script of this argument.
I accept that Conservative Members have, perhaps to their credit, accepted that they have to live with devolution, and that an unmistakable decision has been taken by the people of Scotland in a fairly contested referendum on an unambiguous question. Conservative Members have to recognise those developments, and I give them credit for doing so. However, if that is the position, people have to realise that they must live with it fully. Perhaps understandably, there is a desire to say, "We reluctantly accept the situation, but we still want to alter and perhaps delay the process until change comes." I do not have such a difficulty or take such a position.
The United Kingdom is a partnership, which has separate units, and has worked well for 300 years. I want it to continue working well and serving the people well. However, I think that we will most effectively remain a United Kingdom by recognising the position of Wales and of Scotland, and indeed of England, within the framework of the nation. In our devolution proposals, we are essentially saying only that there is a part of the United Kingdom that, increasingly during the 19th and 20th centuries, has maintained a difference which we should welcome as enriching the culture and political life of the United Kingdom.
Scotland has different health and education structures, different legislation and a different legal system. In many ways, we have a different cultural tradition. Time and again, friends of mine come up from England and invariably, if they are not familiar with Scotland, are struck by the reality of the differences. I think that, if we have such a situation, there is a considerable democratic advantage in saying, "Let us separate those areas of policy from Westminster, where they have sat a little uneasily, and put them under the control of an elected body that directly reflects Scottish opinion."
I accept that we do not necessarily want to take the same action in the north or west of England, as that might fragment something that most people in England think of as a unit. I accept also that people in those areas have a different tradition and a different attitude. However, there is no reason why the wishes of Scotland should not be so recognised.
If I may, I shall be extremely selfish for a moment. I have been in my present job for a year, and, in terms of better government, I can see enormous administrative advantages for Scotland under a devolved settlement. There are advantages for the scrutiny and analysis of legislation and for the decision-making process, so there is a very strong democratic case to be made.
My view, which I put on the record prosaically, is that it does not help to try to turn what I accept Conservative Members genuinely regard as a difficulty into a crisis that will destroy and promote turmoil in this country. By all means, let us talk sensibly about progress and further change. Of course, I have always seen the democratic and constitutional programme as a catalyst for further thought, but let us proceed sensibly to see whether there really is a problem. It may not be the problem that Conservative Members think it is. I do not believe that it will turn out to be that problem, but, if it does, it can be coped with on the basis of the tolerance and common sense that have always been the hallmarks of United Kingdom politics.

Mr. Gorrie: I welcome this debate as a few faltering steps on the road to federalism, which our party feels will be the final solution. Much good sense has been spoken in all quarters of the House. I shall set out how I think that we have got to where we are and why I think that the Conservatives have identified the wrong issue with the new clause.
We believe that sovereignty resides with the people and that the United Kingdom is a Union of nations, not a unitary state. The Scots, as one of those nations, have decided, because of their dissatisfaction with activities in this House over a good many years, to exercise their sovereignty and to have some of that sovereignty in future exercised in Edinburgh, as well as some here and some in Europe. By passing the Bill, we shall solve one major problem—the Scots' dissatisfaction with the way things were done—but we have created an anomaly by doing that.
The first question to be asked is how great is that anomaly. Some Conservatives think that it is a major disaster, as does the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who sometimes appears to have escaped from the Old Testament. He would have been a very distinguished ornament among the Old Testament prophets, or a distinguished member of the group of doom and gloom preachers whom his ancestor so vigorously massacred. However, the hon. Gentleman overdoes the doom and gloom. There is a problem but, as the Secretary of State said, it is not a major one.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The ancestor of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was reputed to have played cards with the devil; all that the hon. Member for Linlithgow has done is to play a few hands with the Tory party.

Mr. Gorrie: In our view, the Conservatives have identified the wrong issue. They think that the issue is the Scottish Members, whereas we think it is the English business. That is what Parliament has to address.
Some hon. Members have maintained that, unless this Parliament runs absolutely everything, civilisation and the world as we know it will collapse. I have been in the House only a short while, but spent 26 years as a councillor. Having become a Member of Parliament and ceased to be a councillor, I have to accept that many things affecting my community are decided by other elected people, not by me. Other people take planning decisions, close schools and so on. The idea that different elected bodies have different powers does not seem to be that great an issue.


Under the proposals, there will not be second-class Members because all Members will have the same restrictions. English Members will not be able to vote on Scottish domestic issues, but nor will Scottish Members. So it will be the same for everyone. The Conservatives made the wrong distinction. Some of them conjured up a picture of their surgeries being besieged by constituents who were absolutely livid that their Member of Parliament could no longer vote on education in Caithness or hospitals in Glasgow. I do not find that very convincing. Constituents worry about local services and not about whether their Member of Parliament can vote on issues affecting the other end of the country.
Although we have made great progress, the issue is the English business. I recognise that it is a difficult one because England is by far the most populous part of the United Kingdom and, quite understandably, many English people did not distinguish between England and the United Kingdom. However, now that Scotland and Wales are being treated differently, they are reappraising their Englishness, and that is a good thing. As others have said, it will result in evolution—gradual, uneven and untidy—which will lead to federalism, but there may be another solution.
There are various options for English people in exercising their sovereignty. Just as the Scottish people have chosen to exercise their sovereignty in a Scottish Parliament, the English people, when they have given the matter mature reflection, can opt for the status quo, warts and all; for a combination of strong regional assemblies dealing with English affairs; for an English Grand Committee, as has been mentioned; for an English Parliament made up of English Members of the Westminster Parliament; or for a totally different English Parliament. All those possibilities keep to the basic rule that all hon. Members must be equal.
The Conservative new clause would create second-class Scottish Members, and therefore goes in the wrong direction. What is needed is a way of dealing with the English business in a coherent fashion to allow English Members to deal with English business in whichever way the English people choose. The Irish will have their own Assembly and the Welsh and the Scots will also control their own domestic activities. In that way, whether it is a federal or quasi-federal system, we shall end up with a fair arrangement that will satisfy everyone. The Conservative new clause will be seen as creating second-class Scottish Members and will cause antagonism in Scotland. We accept that there is concern in some quarters in England, but it is an English question—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have noticed that a few conversations are taking place around the Chamber. That is not fair to the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.

Mr. Gorrie: As I have said, we are making a definite move towards federalism. I hope that, before I look down on this place from a loftier height, or up at it from below, we shall have achieved a federal system of which we can all be proud. The Bill is a great step forward. It has made many English people look for the first time at themselves and how they should run their affairs, and I welcome that.

Mr. Davidson: I am struck by the number of English Tory Members who have said today that they accept that

devolution will now take place. I could almost swear that at least twice I looked up and saw a flying pig disappear behind a cloud outside the window. Their statements have as much credibility as the concept of a flying pig. I do not believe that the Conservatives genuinely accept that devolution is about to happen. Instead of working to improve it and to overcome any difficulties, they continue to fight the general election that they lost. They are still putting forward arguments against devolution, which the people have clearly voted for. One Conservative Member said that he believed in devolution. He would have had more credibility had he said that he believed in revolution. He certainly did not give the impression of believing in devolution in his subsequent comments. That is useful for me and my party because it makes the Conservatives appear anti-Scottish. That is how they present themselves and how they are judged by the people of Scotland. It is why they will continue to fare very badly in Scottish elections.
9.15 pm
It is worth remembering why there is so much support in Scotland for a change to the existing constitutional arrangements. I remember the Tories ramming through the poll tax in Scotland against the overwhelming opposition of Scottish Members and the Scottish people. I remember them imposing rigged local government reorganisation against the wishes of the majority of Scottish people and Scottish Members. The same is true of the changes to the structure of the water industry and changes in education. Change after change has been rammed through in spite of the overwhelming views of the Scottish people. They were passed not by an English Member or two making the difference here or there. Those who voted the measures through were overwhelmingly English Tory Members.
The way in which the concerns of the people of Scotland were treated as a joke by Tory Back Benchers has caused the present revulsion against the Conservatives and resulted in the electoral outcome that they richly deserved. Conservative Back Benchers used to speak at inordinate length in Scottish debates to prevent Scottish Members from criticising what was happening in our country. Their arrogance has fuelled the rise in the nationalist vote and the xenophobia that unfortunately exists in parts of Scotland. Until the Conservatives recognise the part that they have played in bringing about the existing political balance in Scotland, they will not be able to move forward and make the contribution that they can make to political debate.
The overwhelming majority of people in Scotland prefer a Labour Government with a scheme of devolution. Their second choice would be the nationalists and independence, ahead of returning to the policies of the previous Tory Government, which were inimical to the interests of the Scottish people. The Scottish general election next May will be a test of those three strands, with the Liberal Democrats tagging along as well. There will be a major debate about whether we want a devolved Scottish Parliament to work.
I regret that the Conservatives have chosen not to make a positive contribution by proposing constructive improvements to the Bill. The best debates on legislation that I have participated in were those on the Bill establishing the national lottery. Once the principle was agreed, all hon. Members came together to discuss how


best to make the system operate rather than obstructing a principle that they had not been in favour of initially. The Conservatives are continuing to fight the war that they have already lost.
I recognise the arguments about a Member of Parliament for Dunfermline being able to vote on matters affecting other parts of the country, but not those that affect Dunfermline. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) explained the point well. This House is supreme and can decide whether it wants to retain control over education in Dunfermline, transport policy in Glasgow or social work in Edinburgh. If the House decides to delegate and devolve powers, that is not inappropriate. Anomalies are not heaven sent. They are being voted on and agreed by the House. Anomalies will also be created in Wales and, indeed, in London. Many hon. Members have asked where Labour Members are tonight. Most of them are campaigning for constitutional change in London. They are out there trying to ensure devolution for people in London.

Mr. Jenkin: It is touch and go.

Mr. Davidson: We shall see. At least we have set up a position in which a majority will decide. I hope that we shall not create any artificial barriers to the reflection of the will of the majority in any vote.
The issue of federalism has been raised on several occasions in the debate. I am not unsympathetic to some of the principles behind it. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that there was a danger that, due to the size of England and the balance between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the English Parliament could achieve the status of a cuckoo in the nest. That is why there is a difficulty about such federalism.
I would be very supportive of a Parliament or some similar structure for the north of England because I am aware that the consciousness of feeling there is far greater than in many other parts of England. If the north of England moved at its pace and others at theirs, anomalies would be created, but at least the structure would correspond to what people wanted. Then, if areas wanted to take powers, they could have them, and the powers that they did not want could remain in the House. I accept that that is untidy, but it corresponds more closely to the will of the various peoples of these islands than some other solutions that have been proposed.
On what Scottish Members of Parliament will do after devolution, I speak as an hon. Member who would be quite prepared to leave the House. I have agonised over whether the House would be able to survive without me. Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion that it would—perhaps, it would be diminished. I should say that some seem so worried that the House might not survive without me that they are prepared to move, if not heaven and earth, at least twinning boundaries to ensure that I am unable to depart.
It is clear—we cannot say this often enough—that major responsibilities will remain in the House, some of which were mentioned by the Secretary of State. Consideration of trade union legislation, which will be coming up shortly, will remain in the House of Commons.

Decisions on reform of the welfare state will remain here virtually in their entirety. Defence matters, foreign affairs, trade and industry and many consumer issues will remain in the House in their entirety.
All those functions could occupy an hon. Member on a full-time basis. They all offer the opportunity for constructive input into political decision making in the House. There will be more than enough work in Westminster for Scottish Members who choose to remain. It is appropriate that those of us who wish to leave recognise that and fly that flag on their behalf. There is no record of Scottish Members pulling less than their weight. I believe that they will continue to do so.
I hope that the House rejects the new clause because it is simply an attempt to wreck the process of devolution. The sooner that the Conservatives get round to accepting genuinely what has been proposed and the will of the Scottish people, the sooner they will make the constructive contribution to Scottish life of which many of them are capable.

Mrs. Gorman: I do not want to go over all the matters that have been well rehearsed all evening. I feel sad that, when we have these debates, we hear so many Labour Members from Scotland speaking as if they were quite separate from what this Parliament represents, which is the whole of the UK. I remind them that those people who had the opportunity to vote in the referendum were the Scots—and English people and others—in Scotland.
However, not all the Scottish people voted. If those who live in this part of the UK—numerically, they are probably greater than the 5 million in Scotland—had been asked, this debate would not be taking place, because the referendum probably would have gone a different way. We must not allow it to go on the record that this is the will of the whole of the Scottish people, a great many of whom are thoroughly integrated in England.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Surely the hon. Lady realises that the Government, who proposed the Bill, held the referendum and stated in the manifesto that they would introduce Scottish devolution, were largely elected by votes from south of the border.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point. However, there are many parts in a party's manifesto, and it is difficult to suggest that any one is significant in getting the party elected.
I listened with great care to the Secretary of State, who was extremely emollient, charming and high-minded. However, I noticed who crept in and sat alongside him—the Minister without Portfolio, otherwise known as one of the main spin doctors. The party political element—raised briefly by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and dismissed by the Secretary of State—is that there is considerable political advantage in the arrangements which the Labour party has proposed.
The creation of separate states in Scotland, as I believe will happen, and in Wales—with a tiny majority—and the motives for the referendum in London, are seen by Labour spin doctors as having a distinct political advantage in maintaining the Labour party's position of power. It is proposed to break up England into regions, because the Labour party feels that many regions would have a strong Labour majority. That ought to be put on the record.


This is not a matter of high-mindedness entirely—of devolution to a people who feel somehow under-represented and oppressed in this place. That is not the basic motivation. That is all the more reason why we should pause, as the new clause asks us to do, and think again about the issue while there is still time. It is certain that the Labour party will not want any alteration to the Bill, but the new clause gives the English people a better opportunity to express their concerns.
The second issue around which we have tip-toed—although it has been mentioned—is the financial issue. Although Scottish Labour Members have been tempted to dismiss it, it is a fact that, in a representative democracy, the people allow themselves to be taxed, by those they elect, for purposes which they see to be of advantage to them. We are ensuring that people who are not elected by English voters will nevertheless have a significant say in the spending of the taxes raised from the English citizens of this country, who are in the majority and who provide the great bulk of the revenues of this country—despite what Scottish Members have said.
There will be contention about that—whether the Scots like it or not. I know that this is not a part of what we are debating, but, if Scottish Members wish to accept the full responsibility of Scottish devolution, they should accept that the time will come when the full financial cost will—I hope and suspect—be devolved to Scotland. That will be anomalous. We could have a predominantly Scottish Cabinet—we have one now, as nine Cabinet members are Scottish, plus the Prime Minister, who does not have a Scottish seat but is nevertheless Scottish—determining decisions that will be interpreted in terms of the financial demands made on citizens in England, which will cause dissent and contention.
Both are issues of practical politics. We have heard much about historical events and the background to the situation in which we find ourselves, but little about the practical politics and, in particular, the venal interests of the Labour party in bringing all this about. Labour Members see the legislation as part of the preservation of their hold on the governance of this country. I hope and believe that they will be sadly disappointed.

Mr. Paice: We have heard many arguments from both sides of the House. It is sad that, with one or two honourable exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and, to a certain extent, the Secretary of State, Labour Members seem to have been tilting at windmills. They have been impugning the motives of my right hon. and hon. Friends in tabling the new clause and the amendment, but those have nothing to do with English Members voting on Scottish issues or Scottish Members voting on English issues. The new clause and the amendment are not about devolution or delaying it, but about this House and the fundamental constitution of the United Kingdom. To the nationalists, it is therefore not an issue, but I am greatly saddened that the Labour party, as a major constitutional party and the Government of the United Kingdom, does not want to face up to what is happening.
The kernel of the issue is that, at every general election, every one of us is elected to this House to serve as a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and not in any other capacity. We are all equal. Although,

from then on, we divide into parties, a Government are created and so forth, and we may decide, as we do, to devolve responsibilities, that does not negate the fact that at the time of our election we are supreme. We are all equal Members of this House of Commons, part of the United Kingdom Parliament, which is the supreme authority.
I am saddened that the Labour party has not faced up to that fundamental issue. My right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled the new clause and the amendment because of the imbalance created by the Bill, which will change, for the first time, the equality to which I referred and of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) spoke so eloquently.
The issue is not whether there is enough for Scottish Members to do—I understand that they will have plenty of opportunities to fill their time—but that they will be elected on a different basis than Members representing the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice: No. I have sat here fuming at the many interventions, wondering if I would be able to speak, and I know that some of my hon. Friends still want to do so.
The issue is that Scottish Members of this House will come here with many fewer responsibilities after the Bill is enacted. I think that the Secretary of State referred to duties and rights. Of course Scottish Members will have the right to talk about any issue that they want to, but, like English Members of Parliament, they will not be able to speak on matters that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
We are talking not about Scottish Members' rights, but about their responsibilities. As Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, we shall all have responsibility for education, for example, in England, but not in Scotland. All being well, I shall have responsibility for education, the health service and other matters that affect my constituency. All English Members will be able to say, "I have a role in my constituency"—that will be the basis of their election to the House of Commons. Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament will not be able to say that, however—they will not have the same responsibilities. That fundamental difference is the core reason why I believe that we shall face a serious problem.
I do not want to waste the time of the House by talking about English nationalism, although I believe that the Secretary of State was wrong to dismiss it so cavalierly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, our job is to look forward. We have all been guilty—I say this honestly as a Conservative Member—of not thinking through the implications of legislation far enough into the future. Of course we make such mistakes, but that is why the Opposition are now pointing out to the Government what we perceive to be one of the consequences of the Bill.
I had hoped that the Government would take the issue more seriously, and recognise the validity of our argument. We are not trying to stop devolution; nor are we acting out of any of the motives that have unfairly been ascribed to us. We could argue the issue at a lower plane of intellect—we could argue about part-time or second-class Members, or suggest that Scottish Members should receive lower salaries. Those are all real issues, but they do not represent the fundamental problem.


The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), among others, talked about asymmetry. It is true that there is already asymmetry in the systems of government in the United Kingdom. The House decided, in its wisdom, to devolve some responsibilities to unitary authorities in some areas, and to two-tier local government in other areas. However, the House itself is not asymmetrical. The Bill will introduce asymmetry to it, which is what I cannot in any way support.
Like other hon. Members, I have been reading the comments that have been made over the years. I was struck by what the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), said in 1992 as shadow Secretary of State for Health:
Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling Scottish home affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to act as Minister of Health, administering health in England and Wales.
In this debate, no Labour Member—not even the Secretary of State for Scotland—has accepted the fundamental point that it would be wholly immoral for a Scottish Member of Parliament at Westminster to take a ministerial post with responsibilities for those affairs in England over which the House of Commons did not have control in Scotland. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would make at least a gesture to show that he had understood the merit of that argument.

Mr. Savidge: rose—

Mr. Paice: No, I shall not waste the hon. Gentleman's time.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I have long believed in devolution. I know that that will be greeted with some mockery on the Labour Benches, which I can understand. However, Labour Members are gradually learning that, in government, there are things that one cannot say. They are learning the disciplines of being in the party of government—personal views have to take second place to the overall interests of the party. However, I can honestly say that I have always believed in the principle of devolution. It is an essentially Conservative principle to drive power down nearer to the people to whom it is applied. I have believed that for a long time.
The principle does not worry me, but I am angry that the Labour party has not allowed us to debate the fundamental issue about the imbalance of Members' responsibilities and consider how to address it. We cannot do that by playing with arithmetic and reducing the number of Scottish Members, or by playing with whether they should vote on English issues. Indeed, that exacerbates the problem, because every Member in a United Kingdom Parliament should have equal responsibilities.
The only way forward is to think of ways in which this Parliament can be adapted to incorporate the new arrangements for Scotland, Wales and, we hope, Northern Ireland. The only way forward is to move towards an English Parliament and a federal system. I believe that the Government are wholly wrong to reject the new clause and the amendment, for the simple reason that they are embarking on an agenda of constitutional change that they have no plans to complete.
The new clause is designed simply to require the Government to face the consequences oftheir actions for the United Kingdom. That is why I shall support it. I wish to goodness that the Labour party would give the issue the attention it deserves, and come up with some strong arguments on how we can deal with the implications of the actions on which it is set.

Mr. Swinney: After five hours and 20-odd minutes of listening to the debate, it is difficult to come to it with any fresh, new, bouncing ideas to liven up the House at 9.41 pm, but I will do my level best.
The consequences of devolution will preoccupy much of our debate in the months to come. We have spent a great deal of time on one question, when there are important issues in other parts of the Bill that will not be given sufficient scrutiny. I complained to the Secretary of State about that, but I know that it is not his fault, but the wish of the Conservatives. The debate has in reality been more about the English dimension than the West Lothian question.
I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for South—East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who expounded his belief in federalism, and of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). They believed that some constitutional change was required—either federalism or devolution—but when they were in government there was no movement towards resolving any of the dilemmas in a way that would have advanced the argument logically and rationally. If there had been such movement, the Conservatives might have been driving the agenda of constitutional change rather than following it, as much of their rhetoric shows they are doing now.
I exempt some Conservative Members from this stricture, but some of the speeches have shown that those who uttered them had learnt nothing from the referendum, the general election or the arguments about constitutional change. Their rhetoric runs counter to that of the Scottish Conservative party, which is adjusting and beginning to advance its thinking on these questions.
It remains to be seen—this will be an issue for all political parties that fight elections in both the Scottish and the United Kingdom contexts—whether the Scottish Conservative party can disentangle itself from much of the rhetoric imposed upon it by Conservative Members of this House. I accept that many Scottish Conservatives have no liability or responsibility for that rhetoric. None the less, it will certainly cause them political difficulties back home if some of the things that have been said in the House tonight are repeated on the airwaves within the hearing of voters in Scotland.
What seems to be at the root of Conservative Members' concern is the prospect of Scottish Members of Parliament forcing their views on a reluctant population in England. Hon. Members have made much of the times when that has happened since the war—between 1964 and 1966, and in the brief period between the two elections in 1974, when Scottish Members effectively tipped the balance of those Labour Governments.
9.45 pm
However, there has been somewhat selective recollection of the period between 1979 and 1997, when a


whole barrel-load of initiatives were taken by a Conservative Government who commanded minority—and a minority reducing at every election—support in Scotland. Measures were continually taken that were at odds with the views and the votes of a majority of Scottish Members of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) went through a litany of the measures imposed on Scotland by the votes of English Conservative Members against the wishes of a majority of Members representing Scotland—Members from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and my colleagues in the Scottish National party. The poll tax was the prime example.
The debate has highlighted the imbalance of the progress of the constitutional debate within the United Kingdom. The Conservatives' argument is that, because not all the issues have been resolved in a United Kingdom context, the people of Scotland should be held back from realising an ambition and an aspiration long held in Scottish society.
I recognise that today the Scottish people are not in accord with the constitutional option that I happen to prefer as the long-term stable solution for Scotland. None the less, I recognise, as my party recognised at the time of the referendum, that there is an unmistakable drive within Scotland for more control over our own affairs—a wish consistently expressed as support for the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats or the SNP during the years of the Conservative Administration.
The argument against that seems to be that, because the people of England have not come to their conclusions, the people of Scotland should be held back from advancing their own interests. That is a fatuous argument, because decisions taken by the House of Commons over the past 150 years have steadily devolved functions to a separate Scottish administration without applying separate Scottish democratic scrutiny to those aspects of administrative devolution.
We have been told that this measure, which will give democratic scrutiny and powers to the Scottish Parliament, will provoke an English backlash. I could not find the sources in time for the debate, but my recollection of the opinion polls before the general election is that, when people in England were asked what they thought about Scottish devolution, by and large they said that it was a matter for the Scottish people, and that the Scottish people should go ahead with it if they wanted to; it was up to them.
Scottish Members of Parliament and Scottish opinion take the same view about the debate in England. It is up to the people of England to resolve the dilemmas and difficulties that face them about the way in which they are to be governed and represented within a United Kingdom that I realise, as everyone in the House realises, will never again be the same as it was before 11 September 1997, or before the passage of this Bill.
Various other solutions have been suggested to the issues raised by the West Lothian question—or the English dimension, whatever we want to call it. They have ranged from federalism, with an English Parliament, to a souped-up English Grand Committee, and to the answer that my party advances, which is rather simple—independence, which would allow the people of England and the remainder of the United Kingdom to sort out their own business and the people of Scotland to sort out theirs.
I thought that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) offered an interesting argument in suggesting that the constitutional debate was on a route, albeit one that differed slightly from the motorway carefully characterised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in earlier debates. The road had a fork, with one route leading to federalism and the other to independence within the European Union. His central argument was that devolution is not the end of the road, and I agree. There is still a distance to be travelled, and the destination is not absolutely certain, but my hon. Friends and I will certainly argue for the stability of independence and direct representation for Scotland in Europe.
Much has been made of the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), which speculates on the future role of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies. I was glad that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) brushed aside the froth of the debate and said that it was not about money or working hours, but about functions and powers; that was a welcome and refreshing point. There will be many substantial issues for Scottish Members of Parliament who remain in the House to deal with, and although I hope not to be one of those people after the next UK general election, my Scottish National party successor will be here, reminding the House of imbalances in funding and various other issues.
Let us go though some of the issues that will occupy Scottish Members of Parliament. We have heard several hon. Members refer to the alleged fact that Scotland benefits from higher per capita funding. We have been though that debate time and again, but, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East rightly said, until we have transparency in the national accounts of this country, we will not have a definitive answer to that question.
Every time my hon. Friends and I press to get a little more transparency in different aspects of the huge pots of public expenditure that Governments both past and present have told us is unidentified—it could not be split up, and it was not possible to see where it was spent—we find that higher and higher proportions of that unidentified expenditure are being spent—surprise, surprise—in the south of England, and that Scotland is getting a disproportionate share of unidentified expenditure. When we get that transparency—that will be a challenge for the Scottish Members of Parliament who remain here—we shall be making progress in the arguments about the way in which Scotland is funded, and closer to discovering whether my party's repeated contention that Scotland pays its way within the United Kingdom is true.
We might find that, by persistent questioning, Scottish Members of Parliament could explain to the House what the Barnett formula actually does. We have heard many times that the formula gives Scotland far more money, but it is a convergence formula, designed to bring down certain levels of identifiable public expenditure. The explanation offered by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), suggested that he is not terribly au fait with some of the formula's characteristics.
Other issues of great interest to Scottish Members of Parliament will include social security, which affects all our constituents. If social security cases were removed


from my work load, there would be a substantial difference in the number of constituency cases with which I have to deal.
On macroeconomics and Europe, my hon. Friends and I are far from satisfied by the Government's provision in the Bill for representation of the Scottish Parliament within the European Union. We shall press that issue, to ensure that Scottish interests are properly and fully represented in the European Union. We skipped past the issue of defence, as if it was someone else's concern, but not far from the largest population centre in Scotland is one of the largest nuclear arsenals in western Europe, in the bases at Faslane and other parts of the Clyde. Those are big issues for Scottish Members of Parliament in future.
One of the arguments of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was that Scotland wanted a Parliament because those of us who come here representing Scottish constituencies somehow feel oppressed. Our aspiration is to ensure that the major issues that affect our community are properly and democratically scrutinised by people within our community.
None of us can contemplate the way in which Scottish business is transacted in the House with any sense of pride that it has been done in the best and most effective way. The Secretary of State this evening strongly associated himself with the concern that the democratic scrutiny that our constituents expect us to be engaging in is not possible within the confines of the House.
This has been a long debate, and there is still a while to go. I shall soon resume my place to allow some final contributions to be made. The Scottish people have embarked on a move to regain democratic accountability. The move is not as extensive as I should like, but it is undoubtedly a step forward. It is a step to giving them more control over the issues that matter to them. I believe that, increasingly, their aspirations will grow. What is wrong is an amendment tabled by the Conservatives under the spurious definition of resolving anomalies, when it is simply an obstacle to the democratic progress of the Scottish people.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to be able to take up the remarks by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), whose articulateness—although I was bound to find some of it misplaced—was of a quality to have survived even an unusually long wait, as the hon. Gentleman testified.
The Secretary of State accused my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) of whipping up interest in the West Lothian question in his constituency. Though the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) never seems to believe me, I spend a fair amount of my time on public transport in my constituency. On the tubes, we do not talk much—that is one of the characteristics of the tubes in my constituency. On the buses, it is a different matter, though I must say that it is mainly black female constituents who greet me across a bus with cries of enthusiasm that I am actually on it. As votes are fairly spare and sparse, even in my constituency, I do not respond by asking them their opinion on the West Lothian question.
My contribution will be brief because I know that several of my hon. Friends wish also to contribute to the debate. I apologise because I did not hear any speeches in the debate till that by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). Until the hon. Gentleman's contribution I was in a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) is in his place to provide me with an alibi. I gather that I missed a notable speech from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
The charge of Labour Members is that all the speeches by Opposition Members, with one or two exceptions, have been made by English nationalists. Three eighths of my blood comes from Ulster, defining that in the proper sense of that Province. Half of my blood comes from Wales and one eighth from Yorkshire. That was quite a useful admixture when I served as a Minister in Northern Ireland, for seven eighths of it was either Ulster or Celtic. I have no Scottish blood, which I regret. That is why I have not contributed to these matters so far, though I am honest enough to acknowledge that I was in Spain on 4 March with my preternaturally energetic and ubiquitous Select Committee, and therefore could not speak when the matters before us were previously raised. I doubt whether my blood makes me an English nationalist. Certainly English nationalism would not have done me any good in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) posed his famous question when I first entered the House—not in any way causally but it was at about the same time. One of the characteristics of the past two decades has been that the party that formed the present Government had really given up on trying to answer the question. However, I acknowledge that the Labour Government have tried to answer it. The Secretary of State, in his admirable speech—I hasten to compliment the right hon. Gentleman although he deflected the compliment from my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about his sardonic wit—said that Conservative Members really had to accept the Bill, warts and all, and that we should effectively grin and bear it.
I thought that in asking us to do that, the Secretary of State rather passed over the fact that the West Lothian question addresses an English dimension rather than a Scottish one, which was otherwise the gravamen of the charge that we were against the Bill.
The Government do not wish to respond to the West Lothian question, and their problem is that if they acknowledge its seriousness and provide a solution, it will cause them further trouble. In the circumstances, I am not surprised that the Secretary of State asked us to accept the Bill, warts and all. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), uniquely in the debate, believed that he had answered the West Lothian question: I envy him his self-confidence, especially as he is the first person in 20 years to have done so. His self-confidence owed a little more to ephemeral arithmetic than to constitutional integrity, but at least he, from the Labour Benches, addressed the question.
10 pm
The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), among others, accused Conservative Members of seeking to delay matters on the ground that we do not like the Bill. Our motivation is different.


We cherish the Union and wish to preserve it. I appreciate that that distances us from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, but our support for the Union causes us to insist on a satisfactory answer to the famous question posed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The absence of an answer constitutes a fault line of exceptional potential peril for the Union.
I savour the old joke that whenever the British answer the Irish question, the Irish change the question, but the hon. Member for Linlithgow has never needed to change the question because no one has ever provided an answer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) pressed for a review so that the consequences of its not being answered could be addressed. In the history of the Union, a delay of a year would be but a hiccup.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk drew attention to the virtual absence of English Labour Members throughout the debate. I do not know their views on the Union, but it is surprising that they are universally without views on the West Lothian question.
I close by reminding the House of Chesterton's poem, "The Secret People":
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
I hope that we never have cause to speak.

Mr. Robathan: It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) who, as always, made an erudite speech. I agree with it entirely. I shall not reiterate the points made in excellent speeches from the Conservative Benches and shall be brief to allow my hon. Friends to speak.
Sadly, the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber. I, too, pay him a compliment: we shall miss him when he departs the House, because he has great command and acerbic wit. After 18 years in opposition, I am surprised that he is prepared to go off to Edinburgh because it appears from the latest opinion polls that he may be about to resume his position in opposition.
New clause I represents the crux of the Bill and the crux of the matter. The Bill rests on the West Lothian question, which we should perhaps call the Linlithgow question because boundary changes have intervened. It is about the relationship between England and Scotland and the relationship between English Members and Scottish Members. I am a passionate Unionist. I am British and have always described myself as British. I regret that we shall have devolution, but it will happen. If the Bill is passed unamended, I regret that English nationalism, which I shall not support, will grow as night follows day.
We must consider the relationship between the two countries. For every five voters in my constituency of Blaby—indeed, for every five voters throughout England—Scottish Members represent but four Scots. We all know that that is not fair and no one would defend it. It is apparently to be addressed and amended by the boundary commission, but not before the next election—not until after 2003.
I would object if someone said that four white votes would be worth as much as five black votes, as would every other Member of Parliament, so how has this come about? English Members acquiesced in the

over-representation of Scotland because they believed in the Union, but all that is changing and we should alter the relationship whereby Scotland is over-represented in the House. The Scots wish to be doubly privileged, with over-representation and with their own Parliament. However, the main point is the West Lothian, or Linlithgow, question.
I assure Labour Members that my constituents care about this issue. They do not want Scots MPs to determine their laws if Scotland has its own Parliament and I, as their Member of Parliament, have no say on Scottish domestic matters. Why should Scottish representatives determine English domestic matters? The Secretary of State said that we should not be telling people about this question. We have a responsibility to ensure that our constituents understand this matter. It is as if the Secretary of State were saying in 1938, "The Prime Minister says that it is peace in our time, so don't you dare say that there are faults in this agreement." It is incumbent on MPs to point out the faults in legislation.
If the Bill is unamended, it will lead to resentment and jealousy. No Union can prosper in such an atmosphere. In families, friendships and marriages, people fall out over money, and that is even more likely to happen between nations in such unequal and anomalous circumstances. The Barnett formula can no longer be sustained. The Scots should not demand devolution and extra money, yet that is what they are demanding: they want to have their cake and eat it. That is unacceptable.
Scotland will get much from devolution, but will give up nothing. It will have its own powerful Parliament, its own MPs and devolved powers. It cannot logically have over-representation, control over English matters and more money. We should re-examine the relationship in the Bill, as the new clause allows, or it will have dire consequences for the Union and for its peoples.
Those are my fears. I believe passionately in the Union, but England has rights, too. This is not just about Scotland: it is about England and Scotland. I accept that Scottish devolution will happen, but I urge the Government to ensure that inequalities and iniquities are removed to provide a solid foundation. I do not want an English Parliament, but I fear that that may be the logical consequence of the Bill.
The English are not easily moved by constitutional principles, but there is enough to disturb them in the small print of the Bill and in what has been omitted altogether. The Bill's success and that of the Union hinges on the good will of the people of England, which demands that the Bill be amended. The English do not resent the Scots. Many Scots are active in my constituency association, but I find it strange that the Scots resent the English. [Intrruption.] I notice that an Englishman who represents a Scottish constituency is laughing, but I know that the Scots resent the English: their attitude is almost racist. The Bill reflects the small-minded, petty, almost racist attitude of Scottish Nationalist supporters. [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not think that their attitudes are small-minded they should go to Scotland. I find it mean and small-minded when people are served in pubs and are told, "Here you are, you Englishman."

Mrs. Laing: It is much worse than that.

Mr. Robathan: My Scottish colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), says that it


is much worse than that. The English are extremely tolerant, as the Secretary of State said. They want to be friends with their Scottish brothers. I am British—English and Welsh by birth—and I believe that if the Bill is enacted unchanged English tolerance will diminish. English nationalism, as petty and mean as Scottish nationalism, will rise. That will be to the detriment of all parts of the United Kingdom separately and as a whole.

Mr. Leigh: It has been a long wait, but I hope to say something distinctive from what has been said so far and thereby not be too wearing for my colleagues.
It has become almost a fashion in this debate for us to bare our souls and say that we were in favour of devolution all along. I am afraid that I was not in favour of it, and I was wrong. We tried to defy gravity in Scotland and we paid the price. The Conservative party is now sensibly coming to terms with that and accepts that devolution is inevitable. However, it raises serious problems, which we are honestly trying to address. My views on devolution are irrelevant, because we must deal with these problems.
In this debate, we have made the mistake of trying to answer the unanswerable. I refer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—although, in fact, it is not his question; it is the old Irish question, which was debated extensively over a number of weeks nearly a hundred years ago when Gladstone tried to introduce his Irish home rule Bill. Exactly the same arguments were discussed then. It is actually the Irish question, but it is, of course, an unanswerable question: that is why those debates were so lengthy and so difficult.

Mr. Dalyell: I flatter myself that, when I first posed the question, I did so in terms of Morley's life of Gladstone.

Mr. Leigh: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman's modesty that he does not claim credit for the important constitutional question that we are now debating. My hon. Friends, however, have—sensibly—posed that question, and have described the anomalies that will arise. I will not refer to them again, because they are well known and have been debated extensively. The solutions, however, have not been so widely debated, and I now want to convince the House that they are completely, or at least fairly, unworkable.
The first so-called solution is simply to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. As Enoch Powell famously observed during the debates of the 1970s, that is not a solution at all, although it may lessen the gravity of the problem. The Government are managing to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to a proportion similar to that in England, but the problem remains.
The second so-called solution is the federal solution, which exists in various guises. One is, in my view, inadequate: the creation of regional assemblies in various parts of the kingdom. There may well be a call for a northern regional assembly, but there is no such call in areas such as the east midlands or the south-east of England. That solution is also inadequate because such regional assemblies will have no law-making powers.
The third so-called solution is, perhaps, the worst of the lot. I refer to the in-and-out solution—which, again, was canvassed extensively more than a hundred years ago.

Contrary to what many of my hon. Friends have said, it would be utterly unworkable in a Cabinet system. As I said earlier, the government of the United Kingdom must be based on the totality of Members of Parliament. We cannot allow someone to run a Government and not manage to take business through Parliament because some of his supporters are not allowed to vote in the Lobbies. That system would be unworkable, and it will never operate.
Some of my hon. Friends have suggested another solution, which I consider very dangerous: the so-called English Parliament solution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) suggested that we could be Members of both the English and the federal Parliaments. Apart from the problem that Scottish and Welsh Members apparently do not want that, it would not be a solution in any event, because of the disparate sizes of the various nations that comprise our union. As I have already pointed out—and it is obvious—the English Parliament will merely acquire more and more powers, and will become, in effect, supreme. Are my hon. Friends serious? Will they stand for an English Parliament, or for a United Kingdom Parliament? Where would an English Parliament sit, and what would be left of the United Kingdom Parliament?
In theory, the United Kingdom Parliament will debate foreign affairs and defence. We all know that a large part of our defence policy has already been surrendered to NATO. How independent are we, in terms of foreign affairs? How much will there be to discuss? Of course people will gravitate towards the English Parliament, because that is where the real power will be—and this United Kingdom Parliament will wither and die.

Mr. Letwin: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend is saying, but is there not a further problem? Are not the very matters that are reserved under the Bill—which would presumably fall to a federal Parliament—almost exactly coterminous with those that are being given over to Brussels under the various treaties?

Mr. Leigh: Yes.
Much as I should like us to be as powerful as the United States, we are not. The reality that we face in the world and in Europe is that there is not a sufficient role left for a United Kingdom Parliament once health, education, housing and everything that is devolved to Scotland go down to an English Parliament, so I say this seriously to my hon. Friends: none of these so-called solutions is in fact a solution. They are all dangerous.
By all means, as a party, we are entitled to point out the anomalies and difficulties of this legislation. It is not good enough for the Government just to brush them aside, but, as a party, we have to be big hearted about this, too. We have to remember that, first and foremost, we are not just Conservatives, not just Englishmen and Englishwomen. We are Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. We are members of the Conservative and Unionist party.
If we play this card too heavily, if we approach the next general election suggesting an English Parliament, kicking Scottish Members out of certain aspects of this Parliament or having them as subsidiary Members, we will destroy the Union that we love and revere. We did not create this legislation. We did not create these problems. We are


right to point out that there will be anomalies, as there are in any constitutional framework, but we have to have the courage to reject solutions that will destroy this Union and drive our Scottish friends out of this Parliament for good.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate and I shall try to be brief.
In his characteristically courteous speech, the Secretary of State for Scotland accused those of us who have filled the Benches either of being driven by the Whips or of trying to create a problem that did not exist. As to the first, I assure him and reiterate that we have come here because we are concerned about this issue. As to the second, he has a compelling point.
It is easy for us to magnify our concerns and to articulate them in the House when the concerns may be fantasy—perhaps wishful thinking on our part that there is resentment against the proposals in England, which does not exist. From all my experience in my constituency, from what I listen to and ask people about, I am not persuaded by that argument. I am also not persuaded by it because of everything that goes in to make English nationhood.
During the debate on Scottish devolution, we have spoken much about the Scottish sense of identity. We have also spoken about the Welsh sense of identity, but, as I have listened to the debates and to the justified sentiments, which I have appreciated and understood, about a Scottish sense of nationhood, it has become apparent that we in England have been reduced to a sort of blob. I am no longer apparently to be the Member of Parliament representing an English constituency and a constituent part of the United Kingdom; I am to represent a left-over area that lacks its own identity and does not need any sort of separate representation for itself. That is a totally untenable argument.
Most of our country's institutions have an English origin; indeed, that is one of the reasons for some of our complaints during this debate. The concept even of parliamentary sovereignty, so rubbished by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), although it is adhered to by the Secretary of State, has its origins in English parliamentary practice. Our pluralistic democracy derives ultimately from English precedent. People may go into a public library and find much about English parliamentary history, but they will have to go deep into the recesses of the history section to find much about the history of the Scottish Parliament before 1707.

Mr. Salmond: What does that tell the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Grieve: That indicates to me that, unless the arrangements that are brought about for devolved government in Edinburgh are acceptable within the parliamentary context to people who live in England, they will not work.
The proposals in the Bill are fundamentally flawed. Although we have heard much in our debates about the possibility under the new system of insufficient comparability between hon. Members, I am troubled more about the lack of equality between electors. We will establish a system in which electors in one part of the United Kingdom will exercise power without responsibility by sending representatives to the House

who will not be affecting their daily lives, but who will have the capacity to affect the daily lives of others in the United Kingdom.
In my maiden speech, which I made almost one year ago, I made the point that, although the Government planned to incorporate the European convention on human rights—which I approve of, thereby, I suspect, placing me in a small minority within my party—they had yet to answer to my satisfaction the question of how article 3, dealing with the right to free elections, and, above all, with the right to ensure people's free expression in their choice of a legislature, squares with a system in which different groups of electors will have different powers in choosing hon. Members, as those legislators will have different abilities to affect different people once they are elected to the House. The question has not been answered, and it cannot be answered under the proposals in the Bill.
This country was created by the Union of two nation states, both of which have the capacity and the right to opt out of that Union. However, the proposed arrangements completely disregard the rights of the larger nation state—which has been the motor force behind the Union ever since it was created. Unless that issue is addressed, we are on the road towards a very sad and sorry end to something that, as an out-and-out Unionist, I value enormously.
The issue can be addressed. I have often said on many occasions in our debates on the Bill's passage that, although the Bill may sometimes appal me, my adherence to the Union is nevertheless such that I wish the Bill to succeed. The legislation's success may well require enormous changes in the House's practices, and may even require acceptance of the federalist option, which I find an extremely uninviting one.
I am at a loss to think how the West Lothian question cannot be answered by removing the voting rights of Scottish Members in matters that no longer concern them, because of the changes that have been made in the Union. The unwillingness to answer the question, for—I am sorry to have to say it to the Secretary of State—party political advantage does the Government little credit. Unless the matter is dealt with soon, it will simply come up behind us and sweep us along.
I accept that the devolution issue may not be continually discussed in the pubs in my constituency, but my mailbag and people's comments are quite sufficient to make me realise that it is a real issue and that we disregard it at our peril. Most Englishmen and Englishwomen are pretty pragmatic. However, when a situation arises in which the United Kingdom's established parliamentary system is put out of kilter by the presence at Westminster of Scottish Members voting on matters in which they have devolved rights at Edinburgh, that system will break down.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many letters on the issue he has received, and would he care to place them in the Library? As someone representing an English constituency, I am genuinely interested in the letters. In the previous Parliament, I legislated on Scottish affairs, and Scottish Members legislated on English affairs. However, I received no such letters. I do not deny the


sincerity of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but will he put his letters in the Library, so that the rest of us can see the nature of the concerns?

Mr. Grieve: The issue has been raised with me in my constituency, both informally and at every single public meeting with which I have been involved—[Interruption.] Moreover, I have certainly had correspondence on it. One thing that has struck me—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the House.

Mr. Grieve: I always find it remarkable how few letters I receive on many topics, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman when I have checked to see how many letters I have had on this one. I cannot answer his question now.
My parting words are that I accept that my own concerns, genuine though they are, might not be matched by those of my constituents. However, over the past 12 months, my impression, which has derived from conversation, correspondence and all that I have seen, is that my concerns are matched. We disregard that fact at our peril.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall be brief, but, as a Labour Member representing an English constituency, I want to contribute to this major constitutional debate before it is concluded. I have tabled amendments to the Bill, but whole-heartedly support the measure for three reasons and will resist the new clause. My first reason for supporting the Bill is that Scotland is a nation, a fact which needs to be recognised.

Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: No, I shall not give way.
Secondly, the Bill reinforces the Union and gives it some prospect of continuing. It gives new life to a Union which is in jeopardy, especially following the traumatic 18 years of Conservative Government.
My third reason relates to the United Kingdom. We need to advance the proposals on the grounds of good governance. It is in this connection that I address the West Lothian question, which is very real not only to those who are opposed to devolution, but to those who, like me, advocate it. The position is sustainable, but only in the relatively short term. However, the hallmark of the Government—their agenda and their prospectus—is one of dynamic constitutional change. The problems raised by the West Lothian question can be dealt with provided that the Government continue to reform the constitution and devolve powers to other parts of the United Kingdom. I look to the Treasury Bench because there is a need for symmetry throughout the UK, and a need for a federal solution. That may include an English Parliament, and we should not shrink from considering that. I say that on the ground of good governance.
One matter with which few hon. Members have dealt, either today or at any other time, is that although we covet powers in this place, we do not provide for adequate

scrutiny and accountability. It is time that effective decisions were taken at the lowest possible level. Scrutiny of the ever-increasing role of government needs to be carried out much more effectively than is done in the House. Also, our scrutiny of legislation is a sham. It is time that we re-examined the whole UK constitution, which would overcome the West Lothian question.
This is an extremely important matter. The solution must ultimately be a modern, dynamic constitution based on a federal solution.

Dr. Fox: This has been an extremely good debate. Many of us believed that there was plenty of justification for having a debate of this length, and we have been shown to be correct.
The essential argument centres on the equilibrium of the Union. As has been pointed out by several hon. Members, we do not start from a point of symmetry within the Union. We have had an asymmetrical Union, which was perhaps required by the way that the Union came about and, not least, the fact that 85 per cent. of those within the Union live in one constituent part of the Union—England. The Union has always been weighted towards the periphery to maintain a balance within it.
However, the balance is fundamentally altered by the devolution Bill before us because it pretends that we can alter the constitutional relationship within one part of the United Kingdom without affecting the rest of the Union. That is not possible. We seek fairness, balance, stability and, above all, permanence in the new constitutional relationships. That was said at the outset by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in his excellent speech.
The issues do not relate only to Scotland; they also affect Wales and Northern Ireland, although I am not at liberty to discuss them now. We need to consider the equivalent roles of Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) asked whether we, in the United Kingdom Parliament, will all be the same. Even the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who is not in his place, said that we must not have two categories of Members in the House, yet that is exactly what the Bill creates. Those elected to represent Scottish constituencies will be able to vote on English business, whereas those elected to represent English constituencies will not be able to vote on Scottish business. More bizarrely, those elected to represent Scottish constituencies will be unable to vote on certain aspects of Scottish business that affect their own constituents.

Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: No.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that asymmetry is being introduced into the House. Although we can accept asymmetry into the Union in order to make it work, we cannot have asymmetry in the House and still have a United Kingdom Parliament.
We need to look at the rights and functions of Members of Parliament. In reply to my earlier intervention, the Secretary of State said, technically correctly as he is


a lawyer, that all hon. Members will have the same rights. However, they will not have the same functions. He said that they will become specialists, not generalists, but they cannot become specialists in subjects that do not directly affect their constituents. They will not be able to be specialists in health, because they will not be answerable to their constituents on such matters.
The Secretary of State expressed what I considered to be a bizarre view of the role of Members of Parliament in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). My right hon. Friend said that his constituents were not yet concerned about the issue, but that they would be. He said that the more he explained it to them, the more concerned they became. The Secretary of State replied, "In that case, you should not explain it to them. They will be much happier if you leave them in the dark." What my right hon. Friend described is the role of a Member of Parliament. That is why we are here. When the Government are legislating, it is our constitutional duty to point out the flaws in their proposals and tell them where they are going wrong. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs and says, "Ha! Constitutional duty." That is exactly the response that I would expect from a Secretary of State whose Government treat the House with utter contempt and who has no concept of the role of Members of Parliament.
We have discussed a range of potential solutions. We talked about reducing the number of Scottish Members, but that is not a solution; it is simply an acknowledgment of the problem. We talked about reducing the number of Scottish Members and having a convention of silence in the same way as Stormont. We talked about English regional government and the slight snag that the English do not want it. We discussed solutions within Westminster, the designation of business and an English Grand Committee. Each solution had its own flaws, which were pointed out by my hon. Friends. We debated setting up an English Parliament within a federal structure, which also has many drawbacks. None of the possibilities was without problems, but at least we accept that we need to consider them.
Why does the Secretary of State refuse to accept that the West Lothian question is a fundamental problem? The reason is that if he accepted that, he would have to come up with a solution. It is much easier to pretend that there is no problem and avoid having to produce difficult answers. That is why, in six and a half hours, we have had none. We have heard no acknowledgement that the problem exists and no solution.
As a consequence, we face three problems. The first is the danger of fanning the flames of nationalism. We all accept that there is a difference between national pride and nationalism. At the start of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said that we must reintroduce the idea of people taking pride in being Scottish and British, Welsh and British and Northern Irish and British. All nationalism is dangerous. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talked about the slow-burning, smouldering candle of nationalism. English nationalism will be as destructive to the Union as is Scottish nationalism. There can be no place in the Conservative and Unionist party for narrow-minded English nationalism.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)— who, like many Labour Members, is not in his place—gave us a great historical rant, saying that the 1688 settlement was an anti-Catholic, anti-Scottish conspiracy. He said that there was nothing unitary in our state, forgetting about the Crown, Parliament and the armed forces. He told us that English Labour Members had no problems with the Bill, which probably explains why the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has just spoken, was the first Labour Member from England to take part in our debates since Second Reading. I am glad that Millbank tower's pager system is still working. The hon. Member for Dundee, East gave us the Enid Blyton, subliminally anti-English view, which is strong in his brand of Scottish politics. He said that people in the south-east of England got all the money, had all the big houses, were paid all the high salaries and were living off the taxpayer. That is indicative of the language that has resulted in the growth of nationalism in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) failed to understand the legitimate English concerns that have been expressed about the measure. He told us that we were spending too long on this aspect of the Bill, appearing to argue that it is unacceptable for the majority of Members of Parliament to discuss matters that relate directly to them. Deriding English interests is all right for them, but if we do not indulge every nationalist whim, we are being anti-Scottish.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: No. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that I am short of time.
I am glad that the hon. Member for East Lothian is now in his place. He said that there was a democratic deficit in Scotland if laws could be enforced there through the votes of English Members of Parliament. That is not an argument for the devolution in the Bill, but for separatism. Given the reserved powers in the Bill, it will still be possible for laws to be enacted in Scotland on the votes of English Members of Parliament. If that is the logic of his argument, it is closer to the position of the Scottish National party than that of his party.
There are two other problems with the Bill. One is the expectations being raised ahead of the introduction of the Scottish Parliament. However, the most dangerous is resentment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) summed up the views of many Labour Members, who believe that because of the perception of a political injustice having been done to Scotland when laws were imposed on it by a Government of a different political colour, it is all right for them to perpetrate an injustice on the rest of the United Kingdom.
Therein lies the root of the resentment that may eventually manifest itself as English nationalism. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) raised another difficulty. He asked whether, if Scottish Members were unable to vote on English issues, they could sit in a Cabinet that decided policies for which they could not vote in the House of Commons. The Government are not facing up to those practical difficulties.
There is also the issue of scrutiny and accountability. All Members of Parliament of whatever party and from whatever part of the United Kingdom have a tax-raising


role. We are responsible for raising the revenues that the Treasury will spend. We must have a mechanism to enable those who raise the taxes to question those who spend the taxes. We can call to account those who spend money from the Treasury through the Department of Health or the Department for Education and Employment. There must be a mechanism to enable those who are responsible for raising taxes to scrutinise those who spend money on Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The alternative to such a mechanism, which is part of the ideas that we want to put forward in the review, is a fully federal structure in which all parts of the United Kingdom raise all their own taxes and scrutinise the spending of that money.
The Government cannot simply pretend that there is not a problem. There is a problem that must be addressed. We have a tale of two different Governments. In the House we have the Secretary of State—witty, if evasive, when he is not sleeping—who pretends that there are no problems and that all is well. The man who promised when we were debating the White Paper that there would be no increase in nationalism now promises no problems with the West Lothian question—or, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) correctly called it, the English dimension.
Outside the House, they are a different Government—a Government who are losing their way and losing their grip. It is a case of "Another spin doctor for the Secretary of State. Send for the Chancellor to help out the Secretary of State. Send for anyone except the Prime Minister, who does not want to get his hands dirty in case it all goes wrong." The Government's timetable on this measure is a shambles.
Although there are those who are not Unionists—many of them are frank about it—and do not share our concern about the future of the Union, many hon. Members on both sides of the House are Unionists and are proud of it. We are not the Union that we were 300 years ago. We are not a Union of paper. We are a Union of people who have travelled, settled and married in all parts of the United Kingdom. The new clause asks only that we stop and think before we proceed, before we do irreparable damage. For the sake of the House, but more importantly for the sake of Union, I urge the House to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 277.

Division No. 267]
[10.40pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Amess, David
Bruce, lan (S Dorset)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bercow, John
(Chipping Barnet)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chope, Christopher


Blunt, Crispin
Clappison, James


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
(Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Collins, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cormack, Sir Patrick



Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemptice)
Madel, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maples, John


Duncan, Alan
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brain


Evans, Nigel
May, Mrs Theresa


Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norman, Archie


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Prior, David


Gibb, Nick
Randall, John


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
Ruffley, David


Green, Damian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Grieve, Dominic
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Soames, Nicholas


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hammond, Philip
Spring, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hayes, John
Steen, Anthony


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


Horam, John
Syms, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Townend, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Tredinnick, David


Johnson Smith,
Trend, Michael


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Key, Robert
Walter, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wardle, Charles


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Waterson, Nigel


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wells, Bowen


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lansley, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Leigh, Edward
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Letwin, Oliver
Wilkinson, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Willetts, David


Lidington, David
Wilshire, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Loughton, Tim
Woodward, Shaun


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. Oliver Heald and


MacKay, Andrew
Mr. James Cran.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Best, Harold


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Boateng, Paul


Austin, John
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barnes, Harry
Breed, Colin


Beard, Nigel
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Begg, Miss Anne
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Beggs, Roy
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Browne, Desmond


Bennett, Andrew F
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Benton, Joe
Buck, Ms Karen


Bermingham, Gerald
Butler, Mrs Christine






Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Grogan, John


Casale, Roger
Gunnell, John


Caton, Martin
Hain, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Church, Ms Judith
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hepburn, Stephen


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clwyd, Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coaker, Vernon
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Coleman, Iain
Hopkins, Kelvin


Colman, Tony
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Corbett, Robin
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hurst, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hutton, John


Cotter, Brian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Crausby, David
Jamieson, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cummings, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
 Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


(Perth)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Darvill, Keith
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kemp, Fraser


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Dawson, Hilton
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dismore, Andrew
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Doran, Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dowd, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Drown, Ms Julia
Laxton, Bob


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lepper, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Levitt, Tom


Edwards, Huw
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Efford, Clive
Linton, Martin


Ennis, Jeff
 Livingstone, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Livsey, Richard


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAllion, John


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Flint, Caroline
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Foulkes, George
McFall, John


Galbraith, Sam
McIsaac, Shona


Gapes, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McNulty, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gorrie, Donald
McWalter, Tony


Grant, Bernie
Mandelson, Peter





Marek, Dr John
Salmond, Alex


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Salter, Martin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sanders, Adrian


Martlew, Eric
Savidge, Malcolm


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Meale, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Michael, Alun
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Llew (Elaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moore, Michael
Snape, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
 Squire, Ms Rachel


Morley, Elliot
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mudie, George
 Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mullin, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stott, Roger


O'Hara, Eddie
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Olner, Bill
Stringer, Graham


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Swinney, John


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pearson, Ian
(Dewsbury)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Trickett, Jon


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Primarolo, Dawn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prosser, Gwyn
Tyler, Paul


Purchase, Ken
Vaz, Keith


Quinn, Lawrie
Wallace, James


Radice, Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rapson, Syd
Watts, David


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Welsh, Andrew


Rendel, David
White, Brian


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Whitehead, Dr Alan


(Hamilton S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
 Wills, Michael


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Roy, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruane, Chris
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill, as amended (in the Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st May, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. McFall.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

High Newton and Low Newton Bypass

Mr. Tim Collins: This petition has been signed by nearly 2,500 people, either as residents of the villages of High Newton and Low Newton or as employees in south-west Cumbria. It is supported by all the local authorities in south Cumbria and by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who I am glad to see is in the Chamber. The petitioners argue for the bypass on the grounds of road safety, environmental improvement and economic interest.
The petition concludes:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to give priority to the building of the High-Low Newton By-Pass in the Strategic Roads Review.

To lie upon the Table.

Freemasons

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am a freemason, as the House knows. My purpose in initiating this debate is not, however, to defend freemasons or freemasonry; with my knowledge of freemasonry, I hope rather that I can assist the House and persuade the Home Secretary—and, indeed, the Government as a whole—to reconsider their proposals on freemasons.
I fully accept that some people find freemasonry slightly ridiculous. That is a matter for them, but if I and thousands of other men choose to be ridiculous in private, that is surely a matter for us. On other matters, I regularly get down on my knees and pray to a trinitarian God. I proclaim a creed that asserts baptism for the remission of sins and life after death. Some people believe in transubstantiation—that the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of our Lord. Again, I suspect some people find some or all of those ideas ridiculous. Whether I believe them is a matter for me. The state has no business seeking to build windows into men's souls.
Sadly, there are those who, for some reason, regard freemasons not only as ridiculous, but as sinister. Bernard Levin observed in an article in The Times:
Freemasonry hysteria … is paralleled to the same principles as those of anti-Semitism, and indeed it has often been to a very considerable extent a stalking-horse for the more ancient vileness. It could hardly be otherwise; attacks on suspect Jewry have almost always been inextricably entwined with anti freemasonry. Hitler lumped them together without distinction of any kind.
Thousands of freemasons from Germany, Vichy France and Nazi-occupied Europe were killed in the gas chambers. The Home Secretary should stop to consider the justifiable outcry that there would be if Jewish judges, magistrates or police officers had to declare themselves as such.
What justification can there be for the state to invade the privacy of those who happen to be freemasons? In the Home Secretary's press release, only one justification is given, which is
Membership of secret societies such as freemasonry".
That reflects some very confused thinking on the Home Secretary's part. Freemasonry may be private, but it is not secret: our meeting places, our charitable work and our leaders are well known.
There is no difference between freemasons' lodges and hundreds of other unincorporated associations and clubs throughout the country. To put that to the test, I recently wrote to a random 50 or so London clubs, to golf clubs throughout the country, and to organisations such as the MCC, asking for their membership lists or access to those lists.
I made it clear in my letter that my inquiry was not commercial or frivolous and was based on a matter of genuine public interest. With one exception, all those who responded said that their membership lists were private and not open to public scrutiny. Some, such as the MCC, did not even reply.


Liphook golf club said:
I am afraid that we are not empowered to make this information available to you.
Sunningdale golf club said:
I regret I am unable to provide you with a list of the names and addresses of Members which is regarded as confidential.
The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers said that it was
a private Members golf club … the names and addresses of the Members of this Club are not for public examination.
Wentworth golf club said:
it is our policy not to disclose our members' details.
The Royal St. George's golf club said that it was
a Private Members Club and, as such, it protects its privacy and that of those, who make up the Membership.
The Royal Birkdale golf club said:
As a private members club, the names and addresses of members are not open for public inspection.
Every other golf club replied in similar terms.
Of the London clubs, the Groucho club said:
I am afraid that our membership list is confidential so I am unable to furnish you with the details you require.
St. James's club said:
the list is private and under no circumstances would I divulge our list to any person requiring information on our Members.
Brooks's said:
I am unable to assist you, as the list of members' names and addresses is not open for public inspection.
The Garrick club said:
I regret that our Membership List is not available for inspection.
The Reform club said:
I am afraid we regard the list of members of the Reform Club as confidential to members. Accordingly the list is not open for public inspection nor am I able to make it available to you.
The Royal Automobile club said:
I advise that our membership file is not available for public inspection.
I also wrote to the constituency Labour parties of Home Office Ministers, asking whether they made their lists of members available for public scrutiny. That prompted a telephone call from Labour party headquarters at Millbank, asking why I had made such an inquiry. I explained the reasons but, not surprisingly, no membership lists were forthcoming.
If the Home Secretary considers it reasonable for people to keep private their membership of the Labour party, of their local golf club or of any other club that they might join—I hazard a guess that more High Court judges are members of the Garrick than of the grand lodge—why is such privacy to be denied to freemasons alone? What is it about freemasons that he considers so unique that they must be treated so differently?
Why is the privacy allowed to every other club to be denied to freemasons? Why have the proposals drawn no murmur of doubt from organisations such as the National Council for Civil Liberties? Is it, as Bernard Levin further observed, that the
hysteria that can be summoned up about freemasonry comes close to genuine lunacy"?

The Home Secretary's press release is all that we have to enable us to understand his thinking, because he has given no other reasons than those that scantily appear there, but it might be said that freemasons are different because we take an oath.
If that is the reason, I hope that the Home Secretary will have read and noted the conclusion of the Home Affairs Select Committee which, in the previous Parliament, conducted an inquiry into freemasonry and concluded:
when the oaths are read in context there is nothing in them that would appear sinister and nothing in the evidence that we have heard that would show a conflict between the oath taken by a judge or policeman and that taken by a freemason … we do not believe that there is anything sinister about freemasonry … and are confident that freemasonry itself does not encourage malpractice.
Indeed, Parliament has been here before, and not found anything sinister about freemasons and their activities—quite the opposite. In the reign of George III, there was genuine concern about Jacobite plots to overthrow the Crown, and the Unlawful Societies Act 1799 was passed making it unlawful to take certain oaths. Indeed, the Tolpuddle martyrs were deported not because they were trade unionists but because they offended against that legislation. However, freemasons were specifically exempted from the terms of the Act on the express provision that the secretary of each lodge each year gave the meeting place, names and occupations of every lodge member to the clerk to the local justices.
That legislation stayed in place and was observed until 1967, when it was repealed by the Labour Government of the time—on the recommendation, as I understand it, of the Law Commission—as unnecessary and obsolete, in the Criminal Law Act 1967. Has anything happened since 1967 that Parliament should now consider that there has been some public mischief concerning freemasons that needs to be dealt with? If so, doubtless the Home Secretary will tell the House about it.
It may be helpful to observe that, in the past 12 years, there have been 34 ombudsman investigations into allegations of masonic influence in local authority matters, and that in only one case was there any suggestion of cause for concern. By contrast, during the same period, the ombudsman found local authorities guilty of discriminating against freemasons in at least two cases.
In 1988, in High Peak, a local lodge applied to the council for a grant for renovating buildings and was refused. The lodge suggested an anti-masonic bias, the ombudsman investigated and found the council guilty of maladministration and prejudice against freemasonry. In April 1988, freemasons applied to Ogwr council in Wales for a grant to improve a masonic building in Maesteg, and were refused. The council were then forced by the ombudsman to give the freemasons £3,500, and were found guilty of maladministration and prejudice against freemasons.
If there is some supposed malpractice that the ombudsman and the press collectively seem to have missed, perhaps the Home Secretary could assist the House by arranging for a parliamentary question to be answered giving the information, or by placing in the Library a list of instances in which he believes that any judge, magistrate, police officer, prison officer or member of the Crown Prosecution Service has acted improperly in


any way as a consequence of being a freemason. I venture to suggest that such a list would be extremely short; indeed, perhaps it would not exist at all.
The Home Secretary has asked the grand lodge to consider introducing a voluntary register. He has gone about that in a somewhat strange way. No attempt was made to consult freemasons before he issued his press release, and I understand that there was not even the courtesy of a letter when it was issued. No attempt has been made by officials to discuss practical matters with freemasons since the press release was issued, and only when the grand lodge wrote to the Home Secretary in March did the right hon. Gentleman start to address freemasons' concerns about his proposals.
I do not seek to speak on behalf of the grand lodge or of freemasons collectively. I should simply like to draw the House's attention to what the grand secretary said to the Home Secretary in his letter of 16 March. He wrote:
Since time immemorial, men … in this country have enjoyed a right to privacy and a right to freedom of association. You are apparently seeking to create different categories of citizen: those who are Freemasons and those who are not. It seems inconceivable that whilst a man can gain the protection of the law because of prejudice on grounds of race, creed or colour, he is to be singled out because he pursues the membership of a lawful society in his free time. If this is to happen, England will be discriminating against Freemasons in a way not seen since the days of Vichy France or Nazi Germany.
So that you can know how generally offensive such a measure would be, Freemasonry … includes some 350,000 men of all political persuasions and none; and of all respectable religious faiths … Freemasonry is not and has never been a secret society, regardless of what those who hold to the conspiracy theory of society may pretend. Our Year Book, which includes a statement of our aims and principles, and names of Masonic leaders and meeting places, is on sale to the public, and spokesmen are readily available to meet the media, Select Committees and other interested bodies.
I do not believe that freemasons are minded to do that which is not demanded, or expected, of any other club or society in the land and I have to tell Home Office Ministers that, if the Home Secretary wishes to take his proposals forward, he will have to introduce primary legislation. I hope that the Government collectively will reconsider all those matters before taking such a step and that the Cabinet Legislative Committee will give them serious collective thought as well.
I also have to tell the Home Secretary that if he does introduce such legislation, it will be opposed. Any such Bill will be opposed by hon. Members of all political persuasions as being contrary to natural justice and an unwarranted infringement of civil liberties. I do not intend even to start to comment on the practical difficulties of any statutory register. Are police officers who are freemasons to have their addresses published? Who will have access to such a register and on what terms will they have access? Where will the register be held? The practical difficulties are legion and will have to be examined closely if the Government introduce such a Bill.
I hope that the Home Secretary is not insensitive to civil liberties or to the freedoms of individual citizens. I fear that some prejudice against freemasons has clouded his judgment and the collective judgment of the Government. With such a majority, the Government can drive through Parliament any Bill they choose, and

freemasons, being lawful citizens, would comply with such a Bill, if it were to become an Act, and with the wishes of Parliament. However, such a law would not be a happy piece of legislation on the statute book by which to remember the Government. I hope that Ministers, who may have been tempted simply to take forward a recommendation of a previous Select Committee, but who have not given the basic principles the necessary careful consideration and thought, will now reconsider the proposals.
I remind the Home Secretary that, in the past year alone, freemasons gave £16 million to charity—money which was raised freely and voluntarily from among freemasons. Most reasonable men and women in the country will recognise such giving and, however eccentric they think freemasons are, will, after considering the issues carefully, not support legislation that discriminates against one group of citizens in the way the Home Secretary proposes; for to discriminate against one group of citizens in society is to discriminate against all citizens.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has made his case in a reasonable and measured manner, but I regret his stated intention, with others, to obstruct progress on a sensible and balanced proposal by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, supported by the Government, in respect of an important matter of concern.
I shall deal first with two specific points. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not published his reasons for establishing a freemasons' register other than through a press release. That is not the case. On 17 February, the day of the press release, my right hon. Friend appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs and gave evidence on his reasons for establishing the register. That sitting was public and it was reported in Hansard.
Secondly, it is worth pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that the grand lodge, like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, knew full well what the Select Committee on Home Affairs had recommended and was aware of the Government's response. My right hon. Friend wrote fully to Commander Higham on 27 March.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman declares his interest as a freemason. I welcome also the fact that others are open about exercising the option that the hon. Gentleman described as choosing to be ridiculous in private. Perhaps that applies more widely. One of the great freedoms open to humanity is to look and to be ridiculous. Indeed, it is what many of us do best, but that is not the issue which leads to the approach that the Government have adopted.
It is not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who considers the issue important. The matter has been the subject of massive concern and debate over many years. The Government decided to adopt a measured and moderate response after careful consideration of the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I therefore welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's policy in relation to the declaration and registration of membership of the freemasons by those employed or appointed within the criminal justice system, or who seek such employment or appointment.


It is worth underlining the fact that it is the criminal justice system that we are talking about, which is one of the bastions of a free society and of our democratic processes. It is extremely important that it should be free from bias and for that to be seen to be the case.
Before getting into the detail of the arrangements, I should make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, that the Government do not see a problem with freemasonry itself. The Government are concerned solely with dealing fairly and effectively with the legitimate public expectation that the rights and freedoms of all are properly observed and safeguarded in any dealings with the various parts of the criminal justice system.
I think that that is apparent from what my right hon. Friend said to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 17 February:
There is no suggestion whatever that if people want to join the freemasons they should be stopped from doing so. I do not find anything about the freemasons offensive.
Our interest is concerned entirely with the public's expectations regarding the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system. It is an interest which is clearly shared by the Select Committee on Home Affairs—that is made clear in its third report for 1996–97—and, among others, by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The Government announced on 17 February that all new appointments, whether full-time or part-time posts, to the judiciary, the police, the legally qualified staff of the Crown Prosecution Service and the probation and prison services will have to declare their membership of the freemasons as a condition of service. Any later admission to the freemasons after taking up post will also be declarable.
I shall move on to how the Government can best resolve the issue of openness and disclosure about membership of the freemasons in relation to those already serving in the relevant occupations and professions within the criminal justice system. The House will be aware that the view of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, shared by the Government, is that the best solution is for freemasonry itself to publicise the information. However, we know from various comments, which have been reinforced by the hon. Gentleman this evening, that that will not happen. That is regrettable. Consequently, the Government have decided that the various parts of the criminal justice system should open registers and invite serving office holders and employees to declare whether or not they are members of the freemasons.
The Government will consult on where the registers should be available, but, in any event, the Government believe that they should be publicly available. This entirely voluntary arrangement will be reviewed in the context of the need for legislation, having regard to the extent of compliance with the voluntary registers, once they are established. I invite the hon. Gentleman and others to reconsider the view that they would push the Government to introduce legislation. That seemed to be the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Since the Government announcement on 17 February, we have had discussions with two of the groups that were not mentioned in the original statement: coroners clerks and justices clerks, both of which will be included in the terms of the declaration and registration policy. The position in relation to members of police authorities is also to be considered.
Concerns have been expressed that the declaration and registration policy might be incompatible with the terms of the European convention on human rights, in particular article 8 which concerns respect for private and family life. There is no conflict between the ECHR's provisions and our policy in respect of those working in the criminal justice system who are freemasons.
The two key points are that our policy has nothing to do with interfering in an individual's choice about the freemasons, and that the provisions of the ECHR concerning an individual's rights and freedoms are expressed within the corresponding balance of the freedoms and rights of others. It is important to reinforce my point that the Government are concerned about maintaining and improving openness and transparency within the criminal justice system. Given that membership of the freemasons can raise suspicions of a lack of impartiality or objectivity, those matters would be most effectively dealt with if the public had access to the facts.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a previous arrangement whereby freemasons registered with the local clerk of the peace. I do not pretend to be an expert in the law, but my understanding is that the provisions of the Unlawful Societies Act 1799, inter alia, required the secretary of each freemasonry lodge to send an annual list of members to the local clerk of the peace, as the hon. Gentleman said. It is difficult to know what purpose the lists served, but they were not made public and were solely for the use of the magistracy. The arrangements were repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.
I am not convinced that the legislation was observed to the letter of the law up to 1967. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me whether lists were dispatched annually. I am also unsure of the purpose of the system. It has been suggested to me that fear of revolutionary activity following the French revolution 10 years earlier led to the passage of such legislation, which would mean that the image of the freemasons in 1799 was different from their image this century.
Such an arrangement would not meet public expectations or Government policy, primarily because we believe that the register should be publicly available. Our policy in relation to declaration and registration of membership of the freemasons, as I hope that I have clearly explained, is entirely concerned with the public's expectations regarding the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system.
Those issues gave rise to concerns that were examined with great care by the Home Affairs Committee. It did not leap to conclusions or produce answers without having given them careful thought. Nor will we move forward without consulting on the way in which the requirements that the Home Secretary explained to the Home Affairs Committee in February would be carried through. We shall press on with the work needed to ensure that the implementation of the policy later this year is consistent and efficient across the component parts of the criminal justice system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the reasoned way in which the matter is being approached.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.